~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A blockhead of an acquaintance about a year ago actually made this remark to me:
"Rachel, if you've never dated a black guy, you MUST be prejudice."
Yes! That's it! But it got me thinking, from a totally statistical standpoint (that was my 2nd favorite class in college--I know I know) I wonder just what percentage of people I've dated weren't white.
So here I am on the phone with a girlfriend who's just about as odd as me, but we know each other's dating history and whatnot, so we both decided to tabulate. Here are the rules:
1. It had to be a planned date. No like meeting a random person at a coffee house/bar and leaving to go someplace else on the spot.
2. It had to be classified as a date beforehand. Because I went out once with a friend and she conveniently had another guy there that she didn't tell me about because she knew I'd think he was icky. I was duped. It don't count!
3. Going out with someone and being unsure if it was a date or a "just friends" thing didn't count.
4. There was no need for a second date to occur. Because this really makes my overall total number of people I've been out with look a lot better.
5. We decided to go on skin color in one instance. And only because I have a special case (here's another big mention for you, Kavon!!!) of a high school long-distance relationship turned friendship guy whose skin is dark but "technically" he'd check the white box on the census form. But people think he's Mexican all of the time more often than guessing his real heritage. Geez...get some better pictures of yourself already! Stalk me and take my digital camera or something.
6. If the person comes from mixed ethnicities/races, we chose the darker of the two. Because once again, this makes the numbers look better AND I figure that the mixed thing has been a prejudice issue for the datee at some point.
6. You might have an issue with this one: I let her count a white guy that was a one night stand that she met at a disco (yes, a DISCO, not club; there's a difference apparently) because he had two mommies. Whatever, but I'm sure that comes with issues of prejudice, too, so we'll count it.
"Rachel, just don't blog my real name because this is embarrasing." Fine, I'll just give you a crappy name, then. But I am going to add that she is also single and within 5 years of my age. (I hope that didn't give away too much). The fact that I'm not embarrased about doing this is slightly embarrasing to me.
Rachel | ||
Indian | 1 | 0 |
Asian | 0 | 2 |
Black or AA | 0 | 0 |
Native American (at least 1/8) | 7 | 1 |
Mixed (N.A. & Latino) | 1 | 0 |
Son of a gay | 0 | 1 |
Latino | 9 | 0 |
Cracker | 48 | 5 |
“Turkish SKKIIIIIIIRT” (Only select Houstonians get this one!) | 1 | 0 |
Totals | 67 | 9 |
Percentage not white | 28% | 44% |
Wait just a minute here! This table is skewed! It makes me look like a dating whore AND makes her look better on the diversity issue regardless of the fact that my diversity numbers are higher than her TOTAL number. Oh well. I not displeased at the results of this unscientific thingy though. Especially considering that I live in Oklahoma. This table will NOT be updated on a date by date basis for those of you that are nosy.
Odd thought of the day: I wonder if man #69 will be exciting?
No comments:
Post a Comment