“I don't want normal, and easy, and simple. I want…I want painful, difficult, devastating, life-changing, extraordinary love. Don't you want that too?”

Fans of the ABC political drama, Scandal, seemed to collectively swoon and re-quote on Twitter when lead character Olivia Pope (Kerry Washington) delivered that line, breaking up with her current boyfriend to continue her convoluted, adulterous affair with President Fitzgerald Grant III (Tony Goldwyn). I shook my head and thought, “I’m going to make a blog post out of this one day,” and here we are. So many people, including myself, to a degree, have fallen into that trap of believing that it isn’t “real love” unless it drives you nearly insane. People figure that if any one person can drive and control their feelings so easily or make them want to “risk it all,” they must be their soul-mate, but the passionate arguments and extreme emotional highs and lows (often accentuated by satisfying, lustful sex) are just a smoke screen that could damage your being and keep you from experiencing a healthier (and equally sexy) relationship.

There are many reasons why a toxic relationship is like a hard-to-kick habit for some, but a main cause is that the adrenaline that comes with it is addictive; it’s like romantic Red Bull. It is sheer energy, having intense love and hate for someone and having to fight every second for you and your love to survive. Like a burn or a bungee jump, it makes people feel and know they’re alive. The drama is stressful, but it keeps life from being monotonous, and for those struggling with emptiness, it can give a sense of purpose or something to focus on. No matter how strenuous or breaking, test after test and trauma after trauma are tolerated because it’s thrilling to see if you’ll come out on the other side; people get swept off of their feet at the idea of “overcoming all odds.” Chasing this is part of the reason why people take up with “bad boys,” “bad girls” or “wounded puppies;” they come with conflict or a challenge.

There are so many other psychological and emotional stimulants that keep people attached to their James Dean or Amy Winehouse. Some do it simply because they’re bored or like the rebellion of it all; they get off on doing something people advise against, find gossip-worthy or consider “unusual for them.” For others, it’s an (sometimes subconscious) exercise in stroking and rewarding their own ego. When you’re dating a troubled person, you feel needed, useful. You feel special because you get the impression that you’re the exception to their rule; you’re the only person that can “get through” to them and they’re different around you. You pat yourself on the back if they appear to be making “progress” or “cleaning up.” You love it when they (or others) tell you how “good” you are for them. You gradually build this savior complex and think that the universe, God, destiny or some omnipotent, powerful force put you in this person’s life and chose you to be the one to help patch them up. When A) the toxicity reaches all time high, B) the codependence gets to be too much, and/or C) wisdom kicks in and you realize you can’t fix anyone or make them whole (their wounds are bigger than you; their growth and healing starts from within), you decide you want to leave, but you don’t because you now have consequential savior guilt. You don’t want to be another person that left or abandoned them. Maybe you’re worried they won’t handle the breakup well and will delve further into the abyss. In the unhealthiest of dynamics, a person will guilt you for trying to leave or they will  go to extremes, like harming themselves or faking a pregnancy, to make you stay.

“Is this just a silly game…forces you to scream my name, then pretend that you can't stay…when I try to walk away, you'd hurt yourself to make me stay, this is crazy…this is crazy…”--Lauryn Hill (Ex-Factor)

If your savior complex goes uninterrupted by guilt, you’re likely suffering from “potential-itis.” So many people haven’t said “adios” because they’re concentrating on what could be instead of what is. Getting or staying with someone because of their potential is unwise because there are no guarantees you’ll get what you’re hoping for and get a return on your time and emotional and physical investment. It could end up going well, by why play Russian roulette with your heart and happiness instead of choosing someone with better odds?

“Potential-itis” is a sub-symptom of another condition I like to call “I’m Not Going” Syndrome. “And I Am Telling You, I’m Not Going” is a song from the Broadway play and film adaptation Dreamgirls, where the character Effie demands “you’re going to love me” to her already-gone boyfriend, Curtis, and insists they’re experiencing just a rough patch and not a conclusion. Curtis was far done with the relationship, but Effie was taking her precious time seeing it…alone. ING Syndrome tends to occur when a union has gone well for a period (even if it’s brief) and starts to go south. “Potential-itis” is high in this scenario because you’ve seen great days with your mate. It wasn’t always this way, so you’re convinced the turbulence is an isolated situation, but there were red flags you ignored or a pattern forming that you know in your gut isn’t going away soon. You’ve turned off of “Honeymoon Avenue” (good Ariana Grande song), down “Point of No Return” road. Like Effie, you think if your mate “would just act right,” or if you could cut out all the crap and external issues (like the craziness or instability going on in your lover’s life), your romance could be great, but the circumstances are now beyond your control. You only have power over yourself; you can’t make anyone think, feel, say or do anything and you can only manipulate your environment so much. If your partner isn’t actively making changes or cooperating with you to improve the atmosphere, *Mariah Carey voice* it’s probably a wrap. 

“In another place or another time, we would’ve been beautiful, but we weren’t in another place or another time. In the here and now, we were disastrous for and to each other, even though we had a special and strong connection. I had to accept the writing on the wall. I didn’t have the power to make another place and time. There would be nothing left of me now if I continued to deny that truth.”--A friend of mine said of their experience with “crazy love” 

Why people think you can’t do both of these things baffles me. Why is it, that in 2013, we still think that in order for a woman to really love a man, it’s a requirement that she give up her independence or strength? I’m watching Beyonce’s “Next Chapter” and Oprah, who is a very modern woman, says to her: “You balance the fierce woman with obviously a woman who adores and loves her man,” as if one concept has anything to do with the other. When Destiny’s Child released “Cater 2 U” in 2004, so many cried out “Beyonce` was on ‘Independent Women,’ now she’s talking about catering to her man? She’s contradicting herself, she’s flipped the script!” Again, I wondered what the correlation was. How was Beyonce` relinquishing her individual power by singing about rewarding her partner for being a quality mate? Successful, self-sufficient men don’t get accused of being hypocrites if they’re dedicated to their mate. A last Beyonce` example, my father saw her video for “Run the World” and came charging in the room saying “Well, if girls run the world, what does she need Jay-Z for?” implying that Beyonce` would only be with Jay-Z because she needs him to do something. Maybe the divorce rate wouldn’t be as high if we stop approaching or viewing relationships as an exchange of services or roles; I’ll cook a meal and you’ll take out the trash, or as a form of imprisonment and submission.

Even some feminists perpetuate the notion that women can’t be both individually strong and devoted to their partner, as some have negative opinions of marriage and stay-at-home mothers. Stereotypes that “independent” women are selfish and incapable of giving their home-life proper attention and that housewives are weak pushovers both stem from our society’s painful history with gender politics.

The origins of the feminist movement began when a woman’s existence was limited to being a wife and mother, with little command over her own life or input in her marriage. That being said, marriage and home-life seemed to be a woman’s primary oppressor. Despite progress away from this tone, gender bias still affects relationships as we (men and women) struggle as a culture to shake free of our conditioning and former way of thinking. As we did then, we are still forcing women to choose and are missing the point. The movement wasn’t and isn’t about living an independent (or “fierce,” as Oprah put it) life versus a marital life. It’s about choices and freedom; the opportunity to choose either path or both and having freedom within such. A woman is not forfeiting her power in loving a man unless she loses her identity, defines herself by or allows herself to be disrespected or silenced in her relationship. Being true to oneself doesn’t prevent one from being able to love fully. Actually, if “fierceness” and loving are related at all, lack of it would hurt your relationship because as RuPaul says “If you can’t love yourself, how in the hell are you gonna love somebody else? Can I get an ‘Amen’?!”

Male or female, if your partner measures your love by how much you yield to or dim your light for them, then they don’t know what love is about. As cliché` as it may sound, your partner should always want the best for you (even if it’s not them) and encourage you to grow and shine your light as bright as you can. Instead of stifling or negating your voice, they should want to hear it and be considerate of how you think and feel. A caring partner isn’t going to look at your “fierceness” as an infringement on theirs; they’re going to love that ish and respect it. So yeah, Beyonce` can be Crazy, Dangerously & Still in Love (all song titles) with her man and be the Bootylicious, Independent Survivor (also all song titles) mega-entrepreneur-entertainer that she is. Blue Ivy in one hand, mic in the other, man beside her.  

I have a theory that most people would have a healthier level of self-esteem and self-confidence if not for the remarks of others. Even the most secure people with the strongest sense of self can fall prey if it’s the right person speaking to them. After hanging out with a few pals (some single, some not), I noticed how antagonized, patronized and stigmatized single individuals are. They hear rude and intrusive comments on a regular basis.

In our society, especially if you’re of a certain age, it’s expected for you to either be in a relationship or actively seeking one. Emphasis on dating starts early; 1st graders are often asked “do you have a girlfriend/boyfriend?” That being said, forbid you’re completely single (or not sexually active) and maybe feel alright with that, it raises questions and eyebrows. It’s assumed that something is off with you-you’re socially awkward, a workaholic, afraid of commitment, jaded and have trust issues, promiscuous, purposely single or secretly gay. If you discuss relationships or someone’s relationship specifically and you say something seemingly unsupportive, you’re just jealous. For example, I have never been a fan of P.D.A. (public displays of affection). I think it’s inappropriate and a little impolite to suck face or fondle your mate in public. I don’t do it now, and I’m in a relationship. Nonetheless, when I was single and complained about a couple at a pool, I was told “Oh, you’re just mad because you don’t have someone to do that with.” I thought “Why do they think I’m jealous? Oh, yeah, I’m so jealous of all the frustration and crying fits you go through with your partner…” If not jealous, it’s presumed your quietly lonely, sad and want to be set-up. One friend told me people think they’re doing her a favor by constantly trying to set her up and don’t believe that she’s ok with her current single status.

I think all these stereotypes and attitudes cause a fear or insecurity of singlehood and/or sexual abstinence (I mention abstinence because single men are often expected to be at least sleeping around). That fear sometimes leads people into romantic desperation; picking up relationships with whoever meets a bare minimum requirement instead of a solid, healthy match. Some of my girlfriends talk about singlehood like it’s a disease and they’ll die if they don’t find someone. I tell them all the time that if they relax a little and take the time to try and enjoy being single, there’s a lot to gain. You’d be surprised at the amount of emotional and personal growth one can experience, and how much singlehood can strengthen identity. These elements can actually help with dating as the root of many break-ups is individual emotional issues. So, if you’re in a relationship, don’t accuse your single friends of being dysfunctional, gay, jealous or lonely and if you’re single, don’t let the stereotypes get to you or affect your dating choices.

Not long ago, one of my guy friends complained that women “have too many issues with themselves and how they look.” One of my female friends argued that men aren’t as emotional as we are. I call poppycock on both of these ideas. It’s a stereotype that women have more self-esteem issues and are more emotional than men. Women’s image and self-esteem issues tend to be at the forefront because of how intensely women are objectified and sexually exploited, particularly in the media. Additionally, the desire to meet resulting, unreasonable beauty standards sometimes leads to extreme behaviors, like eating disorders. Women are viewed as more “sensitive” and likely to cry and openly discuss their feelings, so it’s assumed their driven by emotions and more fragile. The truth is that men struggle with self-esteem as well and are equally emotional; it just shows up in a different way.

 In American culture, a man must be attractive, have sexual prowess or a large penis, strength and substantial income (comes from the paradigm that men are the “providers”) to have “value.” Should a man fail to meet any of these expectations, he feels less than or is criticized. We won’t talk about this candidly because men are supposed be invincible and can’t possibly have a shaky self-concept, which brings me to emotions. Again, men are expected to be pillars of constant strength, therefore the only emotion socially acceptable for them to express is anger. By the way, anger IS an emotion. If a woman bawls her eyes out, she’s weak and “emotional,” but if a man punches a hole in the wall, he’s just angry. What a contradictory double standard. Anyhow, being limited to anger leads to covert, sometimes passive-aggressive expression, like withdrawal or avoidance. Being controlling, possessive, jealous or manipulative, cheating to meet needs or having resentment from a bruised ego are all examples of emotionally-motivated behavior. Thoughts and feelings aren’t sexist and don’t discriminate.

The plot of the E.L. James bestseller book '50 Shades of Grey' reinforces harmful stereotypes to men and women.

“Dear John…don’t you think nineteen’s too young to be played by your dark, twisted games when I loved you so, I should've known.”-Taylor Swift (Dear John)

Country star Taylor Swift reportedly wrote these lyrics in reference to her failed relationship with singer John Mayer, who is 12 years her senior. Yes, Taylor, 19 is too young; at least in my opinion anyhow. I’ve never thought it was a good idea that young people (particularly those with “teen” at the end of their age) date others who are significantly older. At 18 or 19, most are still developing an identity as they reconcile the familiar and what they’ve been taught with the vastly different world outside of their parental and cultural bubble and draw new conclusions. The lessons that come out of this important period of new independence, growth and self-nurturing can be stunted when dating a much older person as the youth is debatably going from one set of parental figures to another. Instead of their new worldview being shaped by individual experience, it’s shaped by this older adult who doubles as a partner and role model. The younger person eagerly soaks up their older mate’s ideals and life theories with infatuation and intrigue. Profoundly impacting the development of the younger person (purposely or not), the older mate has almost designed the perfect partner for themselves. If the younger person fails to assimilate to the older mate’s liking or starts to deviate, the relationship will likely end. For this reason or any other bevy of causes (ex. the age difference becoming more apparent, the younger person feeling smothered), if the relationship dissolves, the younger person is the one usually most affected and damaged.

“I don't need somebody to complete me; I complete myself, nobody's got to belong to somebody else…my heart is my possession, I'll be my own reflection…I'm one not half of two”- Jessica Simpson (I Belong to Me). Simpson released this song after divorcing fellow pop-star Nick Lachey, who was 7 years her senior. She began dating Lachey at age 19.

Having been so emotionally enmeshed, the younger person may feel lost or like they’ve lost their sense of self after a split, asking “who am I now that I’m not their boyfriend/girlfriend?” Not having had the proper time and space for self-growth, they now have to begin this process later and a little bit broken. 

The loss of an older partner can be multi-layered, complicated grief as there’s a loss of both a pseudo-mentor/parental figure and lover. It can bring on deep, emotional stress that could’ve been avoided. Considering all of this, it makes you question the behavior or motives of those who date considerably younger. Do they purposely seek out young blood to have someone to mold or influence? Do they have maturity issues? One especially has to wonder when their younger love interest appears to be already fragile. My eyebrows were raised when it surfaced that actor Wilmer Valderrama, then 31, and Disney darling Demi Lovato, 19, were dating shortly after her release from rehab (Lovato struggles with an eating disorder, self-injury and bipolar disorder). I thought “What on earth? As if she needs anything else that would require emotional energy or commitment.” Valderrama also dated a teen Lindsay Lohan; the pair was 6 years apart. DJ Samantha Ronson dated Lohan despite her being 9 years younger and troubled. I definitely questioned Valderrama and Ronson’s rationales (their respective relationships with Lovato and Lohan both ended).

Recently circulated on the net was a letter that actress Phylicia Rashad purportedly wrote to her 21 year old self. Rashad wrote: “Romantic involvement distracts you and can blind you to what’s really in front of you…you don’t even know yourself yet…put yourself, and your growth and development first. There are long-term repercussions to what you’re doing now.” To think, that’s the perspective Rashad wishes she had at 21, much less at 18 or 19. Will all younglings who date older men and women be in for the stifling fate I’ve just described? No; there are always exceptions to the rule. However, they’re considered ‘exceptions’ for a reason: their rarity in occurrence.  

Everyone complains about their dating life and their lack of viable options, but the people that have it the hardest, I believe, are bisexual men. Some gay men turn them down because of the stereotype that bisexual people cannot be monogamous. Heterosexual women reject them for a bevy a reasons that all go back to sexual orientation bias and gender paradigms. It angers me how prejudiced people are towards these men, especially considering the root of their conceptions. Here are the most common reasons I’ve read (and heard) from straight women as to why they won’t date a bisexual man.

"The fact that the man has been with another man at any point is gross." 
This statement clearly points to sexual orientation bias. The usual precursor to this sentence is “I don’t have a problem with gay people but…” or “That’s fine for them, but for me…” Why else would you find it “gross” if you honestly don’t have a problem with homosexuality?  What’s “gross” about same-sex interaction? Is it the anal sex aspect? For those women who say "yes," I highly doubt they ask every man they date if he has ever had anal sex with another woman. The cooties they’re so afraid of double for the men who have anal and vaginal intercourse with a female partner, which many have. Some come out of one cave, go in another, and back again. I find the “gross” argument especially irritating if it’s coming from a woman who’s engaged in casual sex, has had multiple sexual partners, or dates a man who’s had multiple sexual partners. It’s not gross that the man you’re dating has stuck his gun in multiple holsters, or that you’ve been stuck a couple of thousand times yourself, but a bisexual man is gross simply because he’s been with another man? Oh, ok. That’s not contradictory at all.

"I like a ‘manly man.’ A guy is a less of a man to me if he’s been with another dude."
Cue traditional gender ideals and more orientation bias. It’s been a long held-belief that all gay and bisexual men are effeminate (which isn’t true) and that same-sex interaction is somehow less masculine. Gender ideals come into play as masculinity is partially defined by a commanding presence and sexual prowess/domination. In heterosexual relationships, the man is expected to have a dominant role, while the woman is subordinate. In heterosexual sex, women are automatically in a submissive position as they biologically cannot penetrate and can only be penetrated. Considering those factors, if a man is ever penetrated or allows himself to be, the attitude is that he has taken on a submissive, lesser position and is more like a woman. This attitude is part of the reason why male sexual abuse victims rarely report incidents, particularly if the perpetrator is also male. These victims are made to feel that they are now weak, less-than and automatically homosexual, which is undesirable. Orientation bias is in play as a man’s value is reduced just because of same-sex relations.

""It’s bad enough to have to watch other women; I don’t want to have to watch men too. There’s too much competition when dating a bisexual man."
Your competition rate is the same. Logically, you’re thinking if you date a straight man, you only have to watch half the room, but imagine if most of the room was female. It’s just like if your man worked at an office with mostly women. Whether your man is straight or bisexual, anyone at anytime can vie for him. It doesn’t matter how many men or women are attracted to him. What matters is if he gives into them or not. If he wants to cheat, he’s going to cheat, no matter who you think you’re watching. The likelihood of someone being unfaithful does not increase or decrease based on sexual orientation. Furthermore, you shouldn’t have to “compete” to keep your man’s loyalty in general.

"I’m afraid I’ll get HIV or AIDS."
No matter who you have sex with, you need to be using protection and getting tested regularly. You can contract HIV, AIDS or any other sexually transmitted disease (STD) from ANYONE. Bisexual men are NOT more likely to carry the illness than heterosexual men. That is a MYTH.

"I’m afraid I won’t be able to satisfy a bisexual man in the bedroom."
Bisexual men enjoy sex with women; that’s why they’re bisexual. No need to worry about those who prefer sex with men, because they’re not going to date you. If you’re concerned about his itch for dick, there’s always dildos, strap-ons and other sexual toys. There’s also dating bisexual men who primarily prefer women sexually. In any case, it’s important to have an open and honest conversation with your partner about desires and concerns. You might find that you won’t have any problems at all. On another, semi-related note, it seems that straight men are a lot less concerned about satisfying their bisexual female mates, than women are about bisexual male mates. That’s likely because of gender politics too. Women are born and raised in a culture that fosters insecurity and low confidence, but that’s a different topic for another day.

The PLUSES of dating a bisexual man.
Believe it or not, there are some.

Sexual flexibility.
For the women who like a balance of control in the bedroom or little adventure, a bisexual man might be up their alley. Because of their varied sexual preference with gender, bisexual men have an easier time sharing control and are more open to trying to new things.
Equality.
Due to the amount of gender politics and issues that affect a bisexual man’s dating life, these men are sometimes more sensitive to and understanding of the plight of women and gender-based double standards. Those who seek out a more egalitarian dating or home life might benefit from having a bisexual man as a partner.

Think twice before you turn down a man who offers everything you’re looking for just because he’s bisexual. Analyze why you are reluctant to date a bisexual man. Are those reasons inherently and unfairly prejudiced? The mistreatment and dismissal of bisexual men has led some to conceal their orientation from female partners. Not to condone the dishonesty, because I don’t, but I understand why they would consider it.

I’ve had multiple discussions with various people about the origins, impact and application of traditional gender roles and I always end up feeling the same way about them: I kind of think they should be abolished. I feel they do more harm than good, and that might be because of how they’re typically applied, but that’s how I feel. In terms of their usual function in marriage and family dynamics, traditional gender roles can be counteractive to familial bonds, border on being oppressive or paralyzing and build resentment between partners and family members. Under a conservative gender-role model, men are supposed to be the main (if not the only) source of income, manage all the finances/business matters of the home (ex. insurance) and perform any remote physical labor involved in maintaining the household (ex. mowing the lawn or taking out the trash). Women are to handle the child-care, cook and clean.
Resentment can easily build as partners may feel burdened by having to be the only one to do a certain task and desire additional help and/or feel like their contributions are taken for granted, underestimated or undervalued (for example, a man being viewed as an inadequate caretaker because family income is low or some feeling that being a housewife is not “real” work). Resentment can also develop if partners feel forced into or limited by their roles, and judged if they seek to step out of them (ex. a woman being made to feel guilty or that she’s a less efficient mother if she has a demanding job, or a man being labeled as weak for being a house-husband). Counteraction to familial bonds can occur with this model as fathers may be more emotionally detached or distant from their children due to mothers taking a more involved, daily role. Also, children can feel neglected by or detached from their opposite sex parent if parental involvement is delegated by gender (ex. things related to Bobby are handled by daddy and things related to Laura are handled by mommy).

Strictly-implemented gender roles can lead to paralyzation in the event that the other partner is not available to perform their designated duty due to death, disability, incapacitation or abandonment (ex. if a woman has never handled the family’s finances nor has any knowledge of how to do it, and her husband is incapacitated, major complications may arise). It only makes sense to me to gender assign responsibilities if it’s based on the physical differences between men and women. Men are generally stronger than women; there are tasks that women will have an immensely difficult time performing. Other than that, if both individuals are capable of completing a task, I don’t see why both can’t do it.

In our society, traditional ideas about gender permeate almost every aspect of our daily lives to excess. Children can’t even willfully choose what toys to play with because of such stringent ideas on what’s a “boy toy” and a “girl toy.” Not to mention “boy toys” and “girl toys” are hard-lined gender-role reinforcers: girls get accustomed to child-care early with urinating baby-dolls and boys get the notion that they’re the only ones that can serve the country with G.I. Joe “action figures” (forbid they’re called dolls instead of action figures). This saturated application is why I find rigid gender roles to be more harmful than helpful. They’ve created a sense of competition between men and women and an obsession with power as individuals ferociously seek to avoid being in a subordinate position. It’s also at the root of inferiority/superiority complexes and self-esteem issues (ex. why a male feels less than if he hasn’t had sexual intercourse by particular age or why females are so obsessed with reaching beauty standards). Why is it that when a male is sexually-assaulted or domestically abused, no one believes him or he's labeled as frail? Gender role ideas. Why was Nancy Pelosi asked who would take care of her children when she was seeking a governmental career? Male politicians don’t get asked that. Gender role ideas. Why was there a male heckler with a sign that read “Iron My Shirt” at a Hillary Clinton rally? Gender role ideas. Behind sexism, misandry, misogyny, gender-bias and gender-stereotypes are traditional roles.

When confronted with the concept of altering the gender-role model or eradicating it, some people fight it tooth and nail. I think some fight against it so hard because they don’t know life without gender-roles. People are afraid of or confused by what they’re not familiar with. Transitioning to a more egalitarian model won’t be easy, considering how conditioned we are, but it can be done. It begins with openness. 

There are many reasons why people get upset when they see those of their ethnicity in relationships with others. Some are prejudice or have issues with interracial dating in general. Others have a problem with those that EXCLUSIVELY date outside of their race. Race-based dating exclusivity communicates to those of your own culture that they’re not good enough for you and that there’s something wrong with them. That’s hurtful. It’s like you’re disavowing your own culture. You might ask “what’s wrong with having a preference?” exclusively dating one race is PASSED a preference. Exclusivity is strict and unwavering.  Exclusivity is “I ONLY date__________ people.”

As a black woman, I’ve come across many black men who only date Caucasian, Asian, or Hispanic women for various reasons such as “I’m not attracted the features of black women,”“black women have bad attitudes” and “I haven’t had good experiences with black women.” When physical features are mentioned, it perplexes me because most people of the same race have similar features. It makes me want to ask “Are you not attracted to yourself then?”  Also, their mothers, sisters and cousins are black women with “those features.” Do they think their family is ugly too?  They came from a black woman and yet, a black woman isn’t suitable enough to date. As for “bad attitudes,” bad apples are on every tree. ANY person of ANY race can have a bad attitude. “Bad experiences” may be the result of not surrounding yourself with quality black women.

Taking another look at exclusivity rationales, statements like “they have bad attitudes” or “I’ve had bad experiences with them” are based on stereotypes and unjust bias. Are you really going to judge an ENTIRE race of people because of a small few? Majority of race-based dating choices link back to stereotypes, unjust bias, prejudice and/or racism. One has to analyze what thoughts or feelings lead to dating preferences and exclusivity based on ethnicity. People usually make preferences because of things they don’t like. I prefer to date someone who enjoys Beyonce` versus hates Beyonce`, because those that are anti-Beyonce` tend to annoy me. So what is it that you don’t like about a certain race that you prefer another? And what is the root of your dislike? Are you sure that it isn’t a stereotype or prejudice?