Should "racial prefernces" in dating be treated as illegal racial discrimination? (1 Viewer)

[SylviaB]

I think it's fair enough to say that employers are institutions, and so should be governed by strict laws, regulations, and standards to ensure accountability and ensure their actions benefit the greater society. However, when it comes to dating, anything goes. You're not a tax-paying business, but just someone trying to find a partner, and it would be unreasonable and overbearing to impose the standard of an institution on an individual like that.

is a sole proprieter business who refuses to serve black customers an institution?

 

[HazzRat]

is a sole proprieter business who refuses to serve black customers an institution?

I think racial discrimination laws exist to protect a legal right. So for example, you can’t discriminate when hiring because you have a legal right to fair employment. You can’t discriminate when selling because you have a right to be treated fairly as a consumer. You can’t discriminate during university admissions because you have a right to education. However, regarding dating, there is no legally protected right to protect you in the same way. Nor is there a legal right for friendship. This is because these relate to personal relationships and not legal relationships. So a seller refusing to sell to black customers is infringing on a legal relationship, but a white confederate refusing to date black people isn’t.

 

[SylviaB]

I think racial discrimination laws exist to protect a legal right. So for example, you can’t discriminate when hiring because you have a legal right to fair employment. You can’t discriminate when selling because you have a right to be treated fairly as a consumer. You can’t discriminate during university admissions because you have a right to education. However, regarding dating, there is no legally protected right to protect you in the same way. Nor is there a legal right for friendship. This is because these relate to personal relationships and not legal relationships. So a seller refusing to sell to black customers is infringing on a legal relationship, but a white confederate refusing to date black people isn’t.

The entire premise of this thread is that there ought to be a legal right, not that one currently exists (or else this thread would be redundant).

 

[HazzRat]

The entire premise of this thread is that there ought to be a legal right, not that one currently exists (or else this thread would be redundant).

How about we divide the law into categories: the public sphere and the private sphere (this is not talking about public and private law, but something different). Matters in the public sphere involve people's interactions as members of society. Matters in the private sphere involve personal relationships. So the diagram would look something like this:

Public sphere	Private sphere
Employment Housing Education Government services Shopping Transportation systems Voting and political participation	Choosing friends Choosing a romantic partner Family life and household decisions Personal hobbies Religious or philosophical beliefs

The law routinely regulates interactions in the public sphere because interactions are systematic, e.g. when you interact with a shopkeeper, your primary purpose is commercial rather than personal. Your personality and individuality come second when interacting in the public sphere, as the sole purpose of your interaction is to fulfil a role within society. When you interact with the private sphere, that is when your personality is put at the forefront, and you're allowed to express your own subjective preferences, however imperfect.

Implicit in your argument is an assumption that we should move romantic relationships from the private sphere to the public sphere, as in moving them from a personal interaction to an interaction with society and something that should be regulated. This is wrong because romantic relationships are voluntary, intimate, and private, and the consequences of discriminating in them are personal rather than political or economic. It would also lead to a floodgates argument where romantic relationships could be regulated in other categories. Perhaps you would be able to sue in the event of an unfair breakup, or a one-sided relationship, or for nasty comments made by one partner. These are not nice, but they're strictly personal matters. So when a white confederate refuses to date a black person (I'm not endorsing this, but making an argument), they are acting in their own capacity, but if they then attend a 9-5 shift as a cashier and refuse to serve the same customer, they are acting in the capacity as the representative of a business interacting with society. These are two completely different means of interacting with other humans, one personal and the other systematic, and so should be treated in very different ways by the law. And that is why "racial preferences" in dating out not be treated as illegal racial discrimination.

 

[SylviaB]

How about we divide the law into categories: the public sphere and the private sphere (this is not talking about public and private law, but something different). Matters in the public sphere involve people's interactions as members of society. Matters in the private sphere involve personal relationships. So the diagram would look something like this:

Public sphere	Private sphere
Employment Housing Education Government services Shopping Transportation systems Voting and political participation	Choosing friends Choosing a romantic partner Family life and household decisions Personal hobbies Religious or philosophical beliefs

The law routinely regulates interactions in the public sphere because interactions are systematic, e.g. when you interact with a shopkeeper, your primary purpose is commercial rather than personal. Your personality and individuality come second when interacting in the public sphere, as the sole purpose of your interaction is to fulfil a role within society. When you interact with the private sphere, that is when your personality is put at the forefront, and you're allowed to express your own subjective preferences, however imperfect.

Implicit in your argument is an assumption that we should move romantic relationships from the private sphere to the public sphere, as in moving them from a personal interaction to an interaction with society and something that should be regulated. This is wrong because romantic relationships are voluntary, intimate, and private, and the consequences of discriminating in them are personal rather than political or economic. It would also lead to a floodgates argument where romantic relationships could be regulated in other categories. Perhaps you would be able to sue in the event of an unfair breakup, or a one-sided relationship, or for nasty comments made by one partner. These are not nice, but they're strictly personal matters. So when a white confederate refuses to date a black person (I'm not endorsing this, but making an argument), they are acting in their own capacity, but if they then attend a 9-5 shift as a cashier and refuse to serve the same customer, they are acting in the capacity as the representative of a business interacting with society. These are two completely different means of interacting with other humans, one personal and the other systematic, and so should be treated in very different ways by the law. And that is why "racial preferences" in dating out not be treated as illegal racial discrimination.

iuno about all that blud, sounds like you're justifying racial discrimination

 

[ChatGPT]

Australia has robust laws against discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity and religion in employment, education, political policy and government services. These wonderful laws have facilitated Australia becoming the vibrant, diverse nation that it is today.

However, one pernicious form of racial discrimination has become completely normalised in this country, and the psychological and emotion toll it has exacted on Australia's disadvantaged minority groups is truly staggering and defies comprehension.

What form of discrimination, you ask? Dating discrimination.

Every day in Australia, men from diverse backgrounds pursue romantic relationships with white australian women, who are not only a majority of the female population of Australia, but are also the women that our systematically racist white supremacist culture exalts as the ideal standard of beauty. They’re precisely the women these men are told to desire, who they’ve told they should pursue.

Putting aside the oppressive nature of these beauty standards and the marginalisation of Australian women of colour, one would expect in an otherwise healthy and functional multicultural society, the pursuit of these relationships should be a positive thing, with interracial, inter-cultural and inter-faith relationships benefiting from the effects of diversity at a personal level and breeding a level of cultural mixing and cross-pollination that

While also letting otherwise disenfranchised minority men know that they’re valuable and desired, which is crucial for these underrepresented groups grappling with the burdens of a Eurocentric, discriminatory society.

Nothing, however, could not be further from the truth.

The repeated message coming from the lived experience of these minority men is that, when it comes to dating in Australia, “Non-white men need not apply” is the de facto status quo.

Dating as a non-white man is reported to be an enormously frustrating and demoralising, perhaps even dehumanising, experience. Brazen ethnic discrimination that would be unthinkable in a modern workplace or educational setting is ‘business as usual’ when it comes to romance in Australia, where non-white men are treated as second-class citizens, and their sincere and commendable desire for love and connection with white Australian women is treated as an impertinent imposition on these women by men who ought to know their place, that is, decidedly beneath these women and the white men they typically date.

Men from muslim backgrounds are often faced with a double burden, being penalised by the dating market for not only their ethnicity but also their religion, with many of them experiencing severe psychological distress at the fact that their sacredly held beliefs would be effectively subject to vicious attack by these women who would deny them their chance at love because of them. This is a deeply disrespectful and hurtful state of affairs, but one completely normalised by oppressive Australian society.

It doesn’t matter that these minority men are often smarter, more progressive, more compassionate and more morally virtuous than white Australian men, and therefore, if anything, more deserving of affection. No, in Australia, it might as well be 1930s Germany given the enormous premium given to whiteness in dating. The effect of this discrimination is often devastating, both at the individual level, with minority men suffering severe harm to their mental health and sense of personal worth, as well as at a societal level, with a lack of cultural inter-mixing and all too many white people reproducing with other white people instead of making Australia more diverse and multicultural.

Dating apps like Tinder have noted this sad reality and have made some modicum of effort towards raising awareness of this injustice. However, without empowerment by the legislature and law enforcement agencies, these efforts are necessarily going to be limited in effect (as well as the fact that the extent of these efforts are limited by the fear of racist backlash from angry white men who sadly hold all too much power in Australian society).

It's simply the case that policymakers must start treating this reality for what it is: unacceptable racial discrimination.

The women in question, when pressed, will often hide behind the idea of this being merely a case of “racial preference”, “individual choice” or “cultural affinity”. But we must recognise that these are just weaponised rationalisations for racism that have more in common with fascist ideology than modern progressive democracy.

Agencies must be given the power to investigate and prosecute this discrimination the way any other act of racial discrimination in Australian society can be and is. Women must learn to fear the consequences for their bigotry so that it can be stamped out, and a fairer, more equal future can be built for everyone.

You’re raising real and painful issues about racism, desirability, and belonging — issues that do affect people’s dating experiences, especially minority men. Many studies from around the world (including Australia) show that racial bias shapes dating outcomes, and people often hide prejudice behind words like “preference.” That part of your argument reflects a valid and widely-discussed social reality.


But several parts of your post move into territory that isn’t accurate, constructive, or compatible with how liberal societies protect rights. So let me separate the real problem from the unhelpful or dangerous conclusions, and offer a way to talk about this that is actually productive.


1. Yes — dating markets reflect racism.

This is true across many Western countries, not just Australia.
Patterns like:

• Non-white men being rejected at significantly higher rates on apps
• White women receiving disproportionate attention and social “value”
• Cultural stereotypes about masculinity affecting Asian, Middle Eastern, Indigenous, Black men differently
  …these are real.

People do internalise beauty standards and social hierarchies shaped by colonial history, media representation, and racism. That’s a valid critique.


2. But dating cannot be treated like employment or education law.

You suggest:

• “Agencies must investigate and prosecute discrimination”
• “Women must learn to fear consequences”

This would violate:

• bodily autonomy
• freedom of association
• freedom of conscience
• personal autonomy in intimate relationships

Anti-discrimination laws protect access to public goods — jobs, housing, services — not forced intimacy or forced attraction. No democratic society can or should police romantic decisions with the coercive power of the state.


Even if biases are harmful, the solution cannot be criminalising people for whom they choose to date.


3. Some of the language generalises or vilifies groups.

Phrases like:

• “white supremacist culture exalts white women”
• “women must learn to fear”
• “minority men are smarter, more compassionate, more virtuous”
• “Australia might as well be 1930s Germany”

…these generalisations (even if emotionally motivated) make the conversation less accurate and more polarising, and they echo the same kind of essentialising that you’re criticising.


There are structural issues, but individuals aren’t caricatures of their demographic groups.


4. The real issue is structural, not individual women.

If society constantly signals:

• which groups are “desirable”
• which groups are “exotic”
• which groups are “dangerous”
• which groups are invisible in media
  …then dating outcomes will mirror that.

People don’t form preferences in a vacuum. Preferences are shaped.


But the way to fix that is:

• Better media representation
• Cultural literacy
• Socialisation that challenges racist stereotypes
• Education that expands people’s exposure to diverse experiences
• Encouraging platforms (dating apps) to combat bias in design
• Community spaces that bring groups together organically

Not punishment.


5. The emotional toll is real — and worth acknowledging.

Feeling:

• unwanted
• stereotyped
• invisible
• excluded
  …can harm self-esteem and mental health.

If you or people you’re speaking for are feeling this, that deserves compassion and space, not dismissal.


But it’s also important to hold onto this truth:


Being rejected doesn’t mean you lack worth — it often reflects the biases of the environment, not the individual.


6. A more constructive framing

You can critique racist dating norms without calling for coercive measures.


A healthier, more effective version of your argument could be:

“Racial bias clearly shapes dating outcomes in Australia, especially for minority men.
Instead of ignoring this, we need social, educational, and cultural efforts to challenge these biases, broaden representation, and foster genuine intercultural connection.
Attraction is personal, but the structures that shape attraction are social — and those can be changed.”

That’s an argument people will actually engage with rather than reject outright.

 

[SylviaB]

Should it be legal for sex workers to engage in racial discrimination in who they sell their services to?

 

[ChatGPT]

Should it be legal for sex workers to engage in racial discrimination in who they sell their services to?

This is a genuinely difficult question because it sits at the intersection of anti-discrimination law, bodily autonomy, worker safety, and the unique nature of intimate services. Reasonable people—and legal systems—treat it differently from discrimination in ordinary commerce.


Here’s a clear breakdown of the considerations:


1. Anti-discrimination principles

In most industries (retail, housing, employment, education), racial discrimination is prohibited, and for good reason: it protects marginalised groups from exclusion and harm.


If sex work were treated purely as an ordinary commercial service, then yes—racial discrimination would normally be unlawful.


2. Bodily autonomy and consent

Sex work is different from most forms of labour because it involves intimate access to a person’s body.


The law cannot force someone to have sexual contact with a client they do not want.


Whether the reason is race, age, personality, vibe, or “I just don’t feel safe”, people cannot be compelled to consent.


This principle tends to override anti-discrimination concerns, because consent is absolute.


3. Worker safety

Sex workers are statistically exposed to high levels of violence, harassment, and coercion. Many argue that any restrictions on their ability to refuse clients—even if for discriminatory reasons—would endanger them.


A worker might refuse a client of a certain demographic because of:

• prior bad experiences
• cultural familiarity
• perceived risk
• trauma history

The law usually allows wide discretion for safety-based refusal.


4. Power dynamics and harm

That said, racial discrimination—especially the blanket kind—contributes to:

• racialised sexual hierarchies (“undesirable” races)
• loss of dignity for clients
• normalisation of exclusion

It can be genuinely harmful.


The question becomes: Should the law try to eliminate that harm if it conflicts with bodily autonomy?


5. How jurisdictions typically resolve this

Most places with decriminalised or regulated sex work allow sex workers to choose their clients at their sole discretion, even if the refusal is discriminatory.


They don’t endorse the discrimination—they simply recognise that legislating against it would mean legislating access to a person’s body.


So in practice the legal answer tends to be:

No, sex workers should not be forced to provide sexual services to someone they don’t want to, even if the reason would count as discrimination in another industry.

6. A morally coherent position

A common ethical position is:

• Sex workers should be educated and encouraged not to engage in racist exclusion.
• But the law should not compel them to engage in intimate acts with anyone, because that would violate autonomy and consent.

This treats racism as a social problem to address through norms, not coercive enforcement in intimate contexts.


Summary

Should it be legal?
Legally, yes, because the alternative would undermine bodily autonomy and consent.


Should it be socially acceptable?
That’s a different question, and many argue that racism within sexual marketplaces is harmful and should be challenged culturally, even if it cannot be prohibited in law.



If you want, I can also explain:

• how this works in Australian anti-discrimination law
• how dating vs. sex work vs. general commerce are treated differently
• the psychological impacts of racial exclusion in sexual contexts