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?

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?

Forest Whitaker and wife, Keisha

If she is a 10 on the hot-o-meter, he is (on his best day) a 1.5. I’m talking, Forest/Keisha here.

Don’t stop reading here because you think I’m shallow. I promise I’m not. I admit that the fact that this is the first thing I noticed when I saw the two of them together is somewhat superficial, but I couldn’t help it.

I’d actually say I was somewhat proud of myself for not listing off all the reasons they could possibly be together:

• She’s a prostitute

• He’s a prostitute (and she is broke)

• He’s older, and therefore wiser, and therefore richer and therefore…

• He kidnapped her when she was young and he is all she knows

• At one point he was her boss and he forced her to date him for a few years to earn a promotion

• She’s with him because he’s a 1.5 and that makes her feel secure

As it turns out, this she’s hot and he’s not phenomena is not uncommon and does not necessarily work (meaning the relationship) both ways.  In a study by the Journal of Family Psychology, researchers studied the role physical attractiveness plays in marital relationships.

Eharmony.com summarized the results of the study:

“Results showed that attractive wives were more likely to be supportive of their husbands, while attractive husbands were less likely to be supportive of their wives. This effect was increased when looking at relative attractiveness between each husband and wife pair. Specifically, when the wife was more attractive than the husband, both members of the couple showed more positive behaviors, but when husbands were more attractive than their wives, couples showed more negative social support behaviors.”

And, what may not be a surprise to many women, the authors of the study suggest that for men, attractiveness is a more important trait, and when they find an attractive mate, they are pleased and provide for a more positive environment.

So, it makes you wonder if all those less than attractive women running around with Denzels and Kobes, should be on their toes. Their men just may not be as satisfied as they should be, and they’ve got a whole lot more options out there…

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.”

Letterman's ratings rise after scandal

So it turns out, David Letterman likes to have sex.

Does that surprise us?  Well…yes.  It surprises us.  Some people just don’t send out that sex vibe.  And that’s OK.  Its fine.  In fact, it’s better that way for us, isn’t it?  To have people in the world who aren’t sexy, who don’t invite attention and gratitude simply because they project that elusive, intimate promise, is somehow reassuring.  It signals to us that there is more to human relations than the selfish, atavistic impulse to manipulate others to get what we want.  I don’t mean to sound negative, but at some level, the sexual drive is purely selfish.  And hey, we’re OK with that.  We get that.  In our own lives, we can reconcile that idea, within limits.  Our approved autobiographies, the ones we like to read to ourselves, are always frank enough to account for a healthy measure of selfishness-in-pursuit-of-booty, but let’s not fact-check that weekend in Chicago too closely.  That may reveal a bit too much about ourselves.

In the over-driven, ever-shifting space we call mass media, made up of Elle magazine covers, artful perfume ads (OMG it’s black and white, but the bottle of perfume is gold colored! – it’s so beautiful!) , and David Beckham in his underwear on a million billboards, we still seem to need figures like David Letterman.  It seems we do need some foils to the Mekhi Phifers and Megan Foxes staring at us from all directions.  Not that we don’t like Master Phifer and Ms Fox…its just that if everybody, everywhere, all the time, is scheming, manipulating, preening, sweating and flexing just to get what they want…then what does that say about human nature?  Where does that leave our hopeful, plodding pursuit of love and justice?  The revelation that David Letterman, has looked upon the buttox of Sherry the twenty-something intern, and probably manipulated, probably bragged, probably risked the goodwill and trust of the people most important to him, just so he could satisfy himself…is disappointing.  It means the Calvin Klein ads are right: sex is all that matters. That sweaty shoulder is so compelling.  That shade of lipstick is so meaningful.  Buy this perfume.

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. . .