I couldn´t vot these poll, but I would vote in the first option.

It seems to me that the offspring of mixed race unions are often strikingly beautiful, more so than the beautiful of the "pure" race offspring.

>> It seems to me that the offspring of mixed race unions are often strikingly beautiful, more so than the beautiful of the "pure" race offspring.

What I found most interesting about the results is not that "pure race" people were found to be most beautiful -that was expected- but rather that multi-racial people also favored pure ones. There is some evidence that people tend to favor characteristics possessed by their parent of opposite sex, so this might explain this phenomenon.

Something which stood out for me in those poll results was the group of respondents claiming not to believe in the existence of races.

Consider the four pictures of Oriental and Central-Asian women which Dienekes posted, two looking white, one looking Chinese, and one looking mixed. There's no way someone could look at those pictures and claim not to see that different races exist. There simply isn't any way unless certain people actually lack fundamental circuits in their central nervous systems that are involved with face recognition, conceivable though highly doubtful, the deficit of neurological primary visual sense or cognition that would be required being so broad as to cut right across at least a few visual and cognitive brain systems simultaneously in ways that not only seem theoretically extremely unlikely, but which have not to my knowledge been described ever in the history of clinical neurology or neuropathology.

These people who deny races aren't being frank -- at least not in the way that (non-Marxist) males are frank in discussion.

Marxists of course consider any lie fair, and think nothing of lying through their teeth to get what they want politically. We all know that. That's nothing new. So we aren't surprised to hear Marxists say things like there are no races.

Completely apart from Marxists, women in general can surprise men in the way they participate in discussions because they consider it legitimate to use language to set or convey a mood, rather than to actually communicate hard, discreet information as men always use language for. So, a woman who knows perfectly well that there are races, who may admit as much in one discussion, may in some other discussion claim that there aren't any, not because she thinks it, but because in that other discussion for some reason she wants to convey a certain mood rather than hard-and-fast information -- perhaps a mood of racial solidarity, or reassurance, or indignation, or something like that. This may confuse any men taking part, if they don't know about this particular unmasculine way women are liable to use language in discussions.

So, the people denying race in the poll could be Marxists, or merely (non-Marxist, non-political) women trying to convey a mood (something women are apt to do) rather than communicate specific information or opinions. Or these race-deniers could be the dupes of said Marxists (or of their race-hustler allies).

In any event, the opinion that races don't exist is not something that can be taken seriously. To even address it, as I'm doing, is a total waste of time which one ought to avoid, not just as one ought to avoid any time-waster, but in addition because Marxists have scored a mini-victory whenever they've gotten us simply to waste our time on their sophistries, time that might have been spent on productive pursuits, such as ... more effectively opposing Marxism, for example.

I found the last comment very interesting. I think the question, from my standpoint, is, first, how does one define "race". It is actually a pretty slippery term. (Check out Carlton Coon re:Nordics and Paleolithic survivors.) How do we slice up the pie? I recognize that there are races to the extent that there are distinguishing physical differences among persons who claim different geographic origins for their ancestors (ex: Mongoloid vs. Caucasoid are associated with different geographic origins, and certain physical differences generally correlate). However, physiogomy cannot fully account for the catagorization of any one individual into one race or another. For example, I know a blond-haired, blue eyed fellow from Maine whose great-granddad was black. Most people would, without qualification, classify my friend as Caucasoid. Yet, based on my knowledge of his ancestry, I am tempted to label him as of mixed racial heritage. Although I was not able to vote, I am a northern Eruropean who prefers a physical type similiar to myself. My physiogomy (appearance) corresponds to the northern European type. My actual partner, however, is of French and Native American stock.
Also, how much of one's racial preferrence (in terms of physical and sexual attractiveness) is based on an association between certain physical types and past experiences? For example, when I find myself attracted to a northern European, is it in part because I have the (conscious or unconscious) expectation that that individual will be easier to get along with (similiar cultura values, etc.) and therefore the likelyhood of a sustained sexual relationship is higher? In other words, is race about genes, phenotypes, emotional/sexual expectations, or some combination of the three?