This Valentine’s Day, more of us than ever will be looking for love online. And if recent studies are any guide, relatively few women on mainstream dating sites will bother to respond to overtures from men of Asian descent. Likewise, black women will be disproportionately snubbed by men of all races. Yes, even though America has been flirting intensely with a postracial label for some time, color blindness is not upheld as an ideal in the realm of online romance. On some sites, it’s not even an option.

(See the 25 most important films on race.)

Chemistry.com requires users to identify their ethnicity; like eHarmony, it considers members’ racial preferences when suggesting matches. Match.com lets users filter their searches by race. The site’s profiles include space to indicate interest (or lack thereof) in various racial and ethnic groups. But after Jennifer House, a black woman in Los Angeles, perused one too many profiles only to find the guys had checked off every box except African American, she changed her strategy. “Now I look at that section first so as not to get my hopes up,” she says.

Racial preferences — or, as some call them, biases — are easier to observe on these sites than in offline settings. Behind computer screens and cutely coded user names, people clearly communicate things about race that few would ever say aloud in a bar.

For example, a study published last year in Social Science Research examined 1,558 profiles that white daters living in or near big U.S. cities placed on Yahoo! Personals, which, much like Match, lists 10 racial and ethnic groups users can select as preferred dates. Among the women, 73% stated a preference. Of these, 64% selected whites only, while fewer than 10% included East Indians, Middle Easterners, Asians or blacks.(See a nerdy Valentine’s Day guide on Techland.com.)

The story is a little different for the men, 59% of whom stated a racial preference. Of these, nearly half selected Asians, but fewer than 7% did for black women. Why? One theory offered by the study’s lead author, Cynthia Feliciano, a sociologist at the University of California at Irvine, is that men’s choices are influenced by the media’s portrayal of Asian women as being hypersexual and black women as being bossy.

The people running OkCupid.com have a less nuanced explanation. In October, the free dating site, 80% of whose members choose to input their race, studied the messaging patterns of more than a million users and concluded on its official blog that “racism is alive and well.”(See the 50 best websites of 2009.)

After attempting to control for attractiveness (using something OkCupid calls a picture-rating utility) and compatibility (on the basis of answers to questions covering everything from spirituality to dental hygiene), the study found that black women garnered the fewest responses of any female group. White women responded at much higher rates to white men than to men of color. Asian women’s and Latinas’ response rates showed even stronger preferences for white men. (The site’s latest eye-opening study determined which types of profile pictures elicit the most responses. To all the single ladies: the older you are, the more cleavage you should show.)

But do racial preferences amount to racism? Or is overlooking an entire ethnicity as innocuous as filtering out redheads or people under a certain height? “Just because you take race into consideration in your dating preferences and are aware of race doesn’t make you racist,” says Dr. Nicole Coleman, a psychology professor at the University of Houston. Minorities who prefer to date within their own race or ethnicity — and who look for potential mates on niche sites like BlackPeopleMeet.com and Amor.com — would probably agree with her.

Even for those who hate the idea of racial preferences, such stipulations can be a useful barometer for finding a person with shared values. Says Bostonian Karen Schoneman: “I tend to have a negative reaction toward a man who indicates race preferences, whether it excludes me as a white woman or not.” When she sees evidence online of what she regards as narrow-mindedness, she skips right to the next profile. One click closer, maybe, to postracial eHarmony.

“Up until right now, my uterus has been all but forgotten like a ghost limb, mentally amputated long ago because it got in the way of more important business. Like being awesome and putting together particle-board crap from IKEA. Or perhaps it’s simply grown limp from too little attention, locked away from the rest of Helena in the physiological equivalent of a dungeon—or purgatory. Official organs like my brain and, occasionally, my heart get full voting rights when it comes to personal legislation like, “Is this man really worth the trouble?” My uterus, however, is the District of Columbia of wombs, getting taxed out the wazoo with repeated inquests from my mother without the proper representation to defend itself. My anatomy, then, is a sort of aristocracy.”

I also find myself distracted by life and career, while simultaneously taking note that an increasing number of my facebook friends’ profile pictures are of (their) infants and toddlers. At what age, if maternal instincts haven’t kicked in or the stars haven’t aligned for a woman to have a child, should she apologize to her uterus and keep on moving?

No luck. The experiment is over, she’s still single (no boyfriend, no prospects, no stalker, no friend with benefits — nothing!), and she’s taking a year off from dating.  

52 weeks. Nothing to show for it. What happened?!  

I perused 52weeks2findhim.com. Neenah is reasonably attractive, smart, and actually has a delightful, warm, and open personality. Not to mention, she came up with this genius idea that got her tons of attention and actually followed through with it. She’s pretty fun. I’d be friends with her. Her weave/wig is unflattering and distracting at times, but I don’t think we can blame the failure on that. This woman should be dating SOMEONE if she wants to be.  

My analysis: Men can smell desperation a mile a way. And deciding that you will go to any lengths to meet the man you’ll marry in a 12 month period looks desperate by any measure.    I bet she meets someone during her year off.

She's ok, but she's no Elin.

Is she cute?

The consensus seems to be that while Tiger’s ladies were cute-ish, to varying degrees, none of them was as attractive as his wife.

Women are having a hard time making sense of this. I definitely did.

But apparently this “cheating down” (in terms of attractiveness) phenomenon is not new. Whether it’s because a) attractive women are less available to be mistresses b) men care about novelty more than attractiveness, or c) the attraction that leads to cheating has an emotional element more than a physical one, I think it’s significant.

The lesson for women: Although men are visual creatures, they may be a little more complicated than we think they are when it comes to temptation and infidelity. In other (more cynical and paranoid) words, no one is safe!

Thanks for the insight, Tiger.

Elite Noir founders say, "We could not find a place that spoke exclusively to us."

A recent issue of Essence included a blurb about EliteNoir.com, which calls itself “an exclusive dating and social networking community dedicated solely to African American professionals seeking love, romance, and friendship with those of similar personal and professional status.”

Approval of potential daters is contingent upon educational attainment, and applicants must include a professional, black and white headshot “to ensure continuity of the site.”  Ah, of course.  Continuity.  Either that or to ensure the weeding out of people who can’t get their stuff together enough to have a professional shot taken.

I sent the link to a friend (a Spelman and Harvard educated attorney, globetrotter, fashionista, and Match.com member), who replied by g-chat after a brief investigation: “This site is killing me softly.  It is so faux bourgeois.”

I had to agree.  Elite Noir brought to mind a pet peeve of mine: Those club e-flyers that fill my inbox starting on Wednesday every week, proclaiming so insistently that the events they advertise are upscale and exclusive, for elite, successful professionals, that they actually begin to appear to be the opposite.

Then again, I don’t go to dive bars – I  attend those “upscale” events right after rolling my eyes at their flowery, excessive advertisements. . . and I’m sure not signing up for blacksingles.com.

In fact, if I’d had the requisite headshot on file, I might have created a profile on Elite Noir, just to see who was out there.  I admit it.  Something about the site, with its black and white design, attractive founders, and well-written prose (and yes, it’s exclusivity) appealed to me.

So, I’m a bit conflicted here.  Blatant elitism in black dating services: over-the top snobbery, or a response to a real need?

“No woman,” the most outspoken one proclaimed “has ever gained or lost a man because of her eyelashes.”

“That is such a waste of money,” another added, shaking his head.

Since I’m single and theoretically looking, I could have just filed away the input.  Instead, I argued.  Perhaps no woman has ever gained or lost a man explicitly because of her lush eyelashes or lack thereof, but don’t eyelashes contribute to prettiness?  (That’s the whole point of the mascara industry, right?)  And isn’t attractiveness somewhere around, oh, I don’t know.  .  .Number One on the list of things men care about?

The jury is still out on Latisse.  But here’s my theory about what does and does not matter when it comes to our physical attractiveness to the opposite sex:

Worth the energy and investment

1. Face (clear skin, good makeup)

2. Hair (healthy, flattering style)

3. Body (in shape, and in flattering clothing)

Total waste of time and money if 1-3 above aren’t taken care of

1. Purses (no matter how expensive)

2. Shoes (no matter how hot)

3. Jewelry (mo matter how blingy)

Am I on to something, or am I just being defensive about the fact that so many of my purses are from H&M?

Women, where do you spend your beauty bucks?  Men, what really matters?

Yesterday, a CNN.com article by A. Palowski raised a question that we know you’ve talked about with friends (usually in the context of someone cheating or getting cheated on): Is monogamy realistic? While I like the idea of monogamy, defending it often feels like a losing battle, and I wouldn’t be surprised if even the goal of monogamy soon becomes a thing of the past.

Check out the article and weigh in:

 (CNN) — If you were to judge the success rate of monogamy by the sex lives of public figures, perhaps couples should change their marriage vows to say, “Till a tempting new partner do us part.”

Talk-show host David Letterman recently joined former presidential candidate John Edwards, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford and former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer on a long list of politicians and entertainers (think Jude Law) who have admitted having sex outside their marriage or committed relationship.

But do they just illustrate the realities of modern life?

In the age of hookups, friends with benefits and online dating, and as human life expectancy grows, is it still reasonable to expect people to pair up and stay monogamous until death do them part?

“It’s realistic that some people can mate for life in the same sense that some people can play the Beethoven violin concerto or other people can ice-skate beautifully or learn a new language,” said psychiatrist Judith Eve Lipton.

Added evolutionary biologist David Barash, “It’s within the realm of human potential, but it’s not easy.”

Lipton and Barash, who have been married 32 years and are the co-authors of “Strange Bedfellows” and “The Myth of Monogamy,” said serial monogamy may be more realistic — a model in which people move from one committed long-term relationship to another and choose partners for different reasons at different stages of their life.

Possibilities in polyamory?

For some, even serial monogamy seems too restrictive.

The 1970s introduced the concept of “open marriage” in which couples stayed married but were free to date other people.

More recently, polyamory — the practice of having romantic relationships with multiple people at the same time with the full knowledge and consent of all involved — has been getting a lot of attention.

“We found the expectation that one person should be our everything seemed unrealistic given our day and age. … It’s oddly pressuring to set up that scenario,” said Mark, who lives in Springfield, Missouri, and is in a polyamorous relationship. (He asked that his last name not be used for privacy reasons.)

Mark, 42, has been married for five years. He and his wife tried different things to spice up their marriage, including swinging, or having casual sex with other people, he said. But they found the experience unfulfilling and decided what they really wanted was to be able to fall in love with others while staying together.

Mark dates another woman, and his wife, who declined to be interviewed for this article, is dating another man. The four of them frequently get together to have dinner or watch movies.

“People describe polyamory as ‘poly-agony’ because of all the work you have to do to maintain things,” Mark said. “It’s just not normal to look over and see your wife with another man. I know a lot of people would have a real problem with that. I really don’t.”

The ultimate goal is for everyone in the group to live together, Mark said.

“This isn’t about having affairs, it’s really about being able to be open and loving,” he added.

Researchers studying polyamory estimate there are more than half a million polyamorous families in the United States, according to Newsweek.

People seeking shorter, more secretive dalliances now have more opportunities than ever online. One example: The Ashley Madison Agency, a dating Web site for married men and women, which claims 4.5 million members and greets visitors with the motto, “Life is short. Have an affair.”

No wonder many people believe monogamy is completely on its way out. French author Jacques Attali in recent years wrote, “Monogamy, which is really no more than a useful social convention, will not survive. It has rarely been honored in practice; soon, it will vanish even as an ideal.”

Cultural give and take

That ideal may depend on where you live.

A journalist who traveled the world to examine how adultery is viewed by different cultures said Americans have a harsher view of infidelity than people in practically any other country.

“Americans are too surprised by infidelity when it happens. I think we go into marriage with perhaps unrealistically high expectations about human nature,” said Pamela Druckerman, author of “Lust in Translation.”

The French, in contrast, are as hopeful about staying faithful as Americans when they get married, but if one of the spouses has an affair, they are able to accept it as something that can happen over the course of a long marriage, said Druckerman, an American who lives in Paris.

When French President François Mitterrand died in 1996, for example, his longtime mistress and their daughter attended his funeral — at his widow’s invitation.

“[Americans] think if an affair happens, it’s the end of the story, the fairy tale has been completely shattered, the person isn’t the person we thought they were. The knee-jerk reaction is you have to get a divorce,” Druckerman said.

“[In France,] there’s less of a sense that the person who cheats is a terrible human being or that this is a marker of a person’s whole character.”

In Russia, Druckerman found that infidelity is considered a pleasurable vice, like smoking cigarettes. In Finland, sex in general is viewed as a very positive experience, so when a person is presented with the possibility of a sexual experience, it’s in some ways socially sanctioned to pursue it, Druckerman said.

Famous and powerful are different

Experts on relationships and human sexuality said that while we may not be wired to stay faithful to one partner for a lifetime, we can make a conscious decision to do so — a choice that still comes with powerful emotional, biological and economic benefits.

And while the sexual exploits of celebrities such as David Letterman can be shocking, it’s important to remember that powerful or famous people can have more inclination, opportunity and resources to stray.

“They are used to the adrenaline rush in terms of being out there in the limelight. … I call them adrenaline junkies,” said Terri Orbuch, a professor of sociology at Oakland University and author of the new book “5 Simple Steps to Take Your Marriage From Good to Great.”

“They need that passion and excitement in their relationships.”

That can make famous or powerful people more likely to look outside their marriage to continue the adrenaline rush, Orbuch said.

Power, wealth and fame are also well-known aphrodisiacs that attract lots of potential new sexual partners — an issue with which typical couples may not have to grapple.

Monogamy’s payoffs

Whatever the temptation, most people still prefer to be in a monogamous relationship, said Nadine Kaslow, a professor at Emory University School of Medicine who specializes in couples and families and who also is chief psychologist at Grady Health System in Atlanta, Georgia.

“People feel safer and they feel more trusting. They feel like they can depend on their partner,” Kaslow said. “I think that we can make choices in a different way than [other] mammals and think through the consequences of things.”

Those consequences can be huge, in many ways. Nature has provided powerful incentives to stay faithful that are still valid.

“There are a lot of reasons why sexual monogamy is in people’s interests,” Lipton said.

“Because whether it’s raising children or avoiding emotional chaos and drama, like what David Letterman is facing, or whether it’s building an estate and avoiding conflict about estate planning, there are lots of reasons that two people who cooperate are better off than one person alone or one person who is a cheat.”

Thanksgiving can be great as a couple. . .IF you're ready.

It’s the middle of October, there’s a chill in the air, and the fiscally responsible are starting to scope out plane tickets to go home for Thanksgiving before prices skyrocket. Meanwhile, the bunned up among us are wondering whether we should bring that special someone along for the ride, the turkey, and the intimate moments with family.   If your relationship is new, here are five reasons not to:

 1.  If there is any question in your mind that you will still be together in one month and eleven days.  

Maybe means no.  Do what you need to do to make sure (“where is this going?” conversation, a quick cell phone check, whatever), but make sure that you won’t be sharing pumpkin pie with some guy or girl you used to date. .. for three months . . . a month ago and are “still great friends with” (yeah, right).  The holiday could end up awkward at best, and more than likely miserable. And of course (because this is just the way things work out), Former Significant Other and your mother would probably hit it off and ask you for updates about each other for the next six years.

 2.  If your family is dramatically crazier or less pleasant than you are.

  Everyone has a crazy uncle, but I have a crazy uncle who thinks WWF wrestling is real and has called the police when it gets too rough.  Some people don’t get along with their siblings, but I have a brother who spews hate in the way only someone who dabbles in the Nation of Islam and simultaneously agrees with Rush Limbaugh (and extracts the worst elements of both) could.  Frankly, I would not wish a dinner with him on my worst enemy, let alone a new boyfriend.  If you have similar characters around the table, you’d be advised to wait until Christmas. . .or maybe after your wedding to let them show their true colors.  

3.  If you don’t have non-awkward sleeping arrangements 100% figured out.

 Thanksgiving eve is not the time to be negotiating the awkward terrain of co-sleeping under your parents’ roof.  Your date should be able to walk in your front door knowing exactly in which pre-approved room he may put his bags without setting off a To Catch A Predator-like confrontation with your dad.

 4.  If he or she is a non-outgoing or non-confident vegetarian.

 You have to have a great personality to be a vegetarian in someone else’s home without coming off as rude, stuck up, or unappreciative.  If your vegetarian (or worse, vegan) date isn’t ready to be charming and self-deprecating, laugh off comments about needing some meat on her bones, and rave endlessly about the yams, don’t bring her.  Everyone will suffer and whoever prepared the food will hate her.

 5.  If you’re still in the super cute phase.

 Thanksgiving has a lot to do with being uncomfortably full and lazy.  If you’re not cool with being these things around him or her, wait ‘till Christmas to hang out.  Try a couple of hungover mornings between now and then.  You’ll get there.

Weigh in: Add your own reasons for traveling home solo. . .

Interestingly, their biggest challenge hasn’t come in the form of cultural differences, racially uncomfortable moments, or judgment from family and friends, but in the communication of attraction itself.  I keep hearing the same refrain: “It’s so hard to tell when a white guy is attracted to me.  I just can’t read them!”

These guys are chatting at parties all night, but not asking for phone numbers or even sending facebook friend requests.  When they do call, they’re making smalltalk instead of asking for dates.  When they do go on quasi-dates, they’re not making any physical moves or explicitly expressing interest.  This is a little underwhelming to women who are used to getting “Pretty smile!” and “Hey, beautiful” and “Dinner?” from approximately 45 black men per week.

As a result, I’ve observed that the Something New plan has often been pretty anticlimactic.

Everyone knows black women are waaaayy more committed to dating black men than any other group is to dating within their race.  The familiar refrain is that it’s because we love and are committed to black men and the black community, but could it really just be that we’re clueless when it comes to interpreting the more subtle ways other men express interest? Maybe someone could cash in teaching a Hitch-like course, but specifically focused on approaching black women? Or is there something else going on?

Bald and Cute

Well, go ahead and give up on Oprah starting a natural hair revolution. She’s declared that she’ll never do a big chop because she doesn’t have “the head for it” or “the chin for it.” See the video here: Oprah Refuses to Cut Her Hair

Meanwhile, Solange – who joined her on the show with Chris Rock, discussing Good Hair – brazenly dons a short cut. But don’t give the younger Knowles too much credit. She isn’t any more self-actualized, progressive, or afrocentric than Oprah is. She just knew she’d still be cute. Sort of like a woman with flawless skin can go without makeup and proclaim herself down-to-earth, when in fact she just has good genes.

Since we’re talking about dating here, I’d like to suggest the following:

As much as black women obsess over hair, black men don’t give two shakes of a rat-tail comb whether it’s long or short, relaxed or natural, real or fake, present or totally absent, as long as its part of an overall package that is cohesive, attractive, and confident.

Tell me if I’m wrong.

On that note, I’m going to go inspect my chin. . .