Can We Talk About Race?

[XerXesXu]

And I think when most of your Lit library consists of stories about white dudes exploiting poverty-stricken Filipina bar girls, it's probably a wise idea to ease back on that kink-shaming throttle.

Speaking as someone who writes in both I/R and NC/R: they're both about kinks that come from the darker side of human nature and I do think it's important to approach writing them with eyes wide open and an awareness of what that means, if you're going to do it. It's not necessarily as simple as "oh, it's just fantasy," and being extra-aware of what you do and say both inside and outside the fiction does matter. That applies to interracial or noncon just as it applies to incest or, say, sex tourism. All of these are kinks tied to things that are objectively negative in the real world. It's a good thing to be aware of that.

That said, these kinds of kinks aren't going anywhere. They're part of the human condition, the lived world that we draw erotic inspiration from, warts and all. And I don't want anyone getting it twisted: none of what I've said about interracial in this thread is about kink-shaming or attempting to moralize at people writing in these categories. That interracial kink exploits a racist trope is obvious; that doesn't mean it appeals solely to dyed-in-the-wool supremacists or that getting off to any form of it inherently makes you evil. NC/R kink is much the same, and reducing it to "feed the rapist" is more rhetorical gamesmanship than serious analysis.

“And I think when most of your Lit library consists of stories about white dudes exploiting poverty-stricken Filipina bar girls, it's probably a wise idea to ease back on that kink-shaming throttle.”

There are two stories ‘Bar Girl’ and ‘Sex Tourist’. They're introductions to the concept of different cultural and moral universes, promiscuity being the particular strand of morality.

I’d remind you that this thread, as initiated by the OP, was about his personal unease using certain tropes. If you find it offensive to find that others may have conflicts and doubts where you have none, Authors Hangout contains many threads where you’ll be safe from offence.

As for the rest of your post, see my response to Simon.

I haven’t declared my view on the original BBC issue or the NC side-wind yet, I’ve simply asked questions; I‘m still listening to peoples arguments.

Tip. If you’re going to excoriate supposed kink-shaming, it looks better if you don’t open your post by doing it yourself.

 

[CyranoJ]

There are two stories ‘Bar Girl’ and ‘Sex Tourist’. They're introductions to the concept of different cultural and moral universes, promiscuity being the particular strand of morality.

And again, the bullk of your Lit entries between them. But then: summing them up as "feeding the colonizer / rapist [but I repeat myself]" would be... unfair? Just perhaps? A wee bit... tendentious and misleading, even?

To be clear: I think it absolutely would. And I am not doing so. I am not kink-shaming you. I am pointing out that if you imagine that you have a clear and purely unimpeachable moral high ground from which to do so to other people, you are simply not correct. Like the bulk of us, you're in a glass house from which you should probably not be throwing stones: the list of what's potentially problematic, strictly speaking, in sex tourism kink would embrace most aspects of the potential squick of the I/R and NC/R categories combined. That said, I'm quite sure there are nuances to those stories that I would appreciate with more than a quick skim. By all means, write what you write.

And that. Is. The. Point. I am simply not buying from you this frankly hypocritical routine you're trying to run on SimonDoom. I don't think you're positioned to attempt it, whatever the more nuanced background of your stories might be. That's not in itself necessarily a slam on you: I wouldn't be positioned to attempt it, either. I literally write the I/R and NC/R categories combined. But then... I'm not attempting it, and you are, and not to put too fine a point on it I think you're pretty obviously full of shit. So, there's that.

 

[ChloeTzang]

Condoms. That's why it matters. Manufacturers need to make the correct size for their market. Here you have to buy imported, the domestic product invariably slide off.

And NO guy ever, bought a size "small" condom

Interested thread, playing catchup.

Every trope in erotica about race plays to racism.

There, I'd disagree. You can slide race into a story without it being racist, I do that all the time, although I usually laugh about white guys with yellow fever.

And as you pointed out below - that, I'd agree with, altho you can play the kink without it being racist. The thing is, most don't.

....When your character is black or Asian or Hispanic and aside from that they're a character without the ethnicity constantly being played up, then you have it right, if you're using the ethnicity as a kink, you're falling in line with that word.....

 

[XerXesXu]

And again, the bullk of your Lit entries between them. But then: summing them up as "feeding the colonizer / rapist [but I repeat myself]" would be... unfair? Just perhaps? A wee bit... tendentious and misleading, even?

To be clear: I think it absolutely would. And I am not doing so. I am not kink-shaming you. I am pointing out that if you imagine that you have a clear and purely unimpeachable moral high ground from which to do so to other people, you are simply not correct. Like the bulk of us, you're in a glass house from which you should probably not be throwing stones: the list of what's potentially problematic, strictly speaking, in sex tourism kink would embrace most aspects of the potential squick of the I/R and NC/R categories combined. That said, I'm quite sure there are nuances to those stories that I would appreciate with more than a quick skim. By all means, write what you write.

And that. Is. The. Point. I am simply not buying from you this frankly hypocritical routine you're trying to run on SimonDoom. I don't think you're positioned to attempt it, whatever the more nuanced background of your stories might be. That's not in itself necessarily a slam on you: I wouldn't be positioned to attempt it, either. I literally write the I/R and NC/R categories combined. But then... I'm not attempting it, and you are, and not to put too fine a point on it I think you're pretty obviously full of shit. So, there's that.

“And again, the bullk of your Lit entries between them. But then: summing them up as "feeding the colonizer / rapist [but I repeat myself]" would be... unfair? Just perhaps? A wee bit... tendentious and misleading, even?”

You choose your words, I choose mine. It’s that simple. This is not a thread where you’ll be safe from other peoples’ words.

“I am pointing out that if you imagine that you have a clear and purely unimpeachable moral high ground from which to do so to other people, you are simply not correct.”

A vivid imagination imagining offence.

“I am simply not buying from you this frankly hypocritical routine you're trying to run on SimonDoom.”

And, by proxy, on you, it seems. More imagination. Please describe this hypocritical routine that’s appeared in your mind. Do you feel unduly defensive about being asked uncomfortable questions? If so, why?

 

[CyranoJ]

You choose your words, I choose mine. It’s that simple.

Actually, the way it works is that your choice of words is subject to questioning, same as anyone else's, and especially when the choice is tendentious or nonsensical. That's how that really works. I take it you're deflecting because you can't actually disagree with the point being made, yes?

A vivid imagination imagining offence

If you engage in pointed rhetoric, expect pointed responses. You were attempting to portray SimonDoom as a rape apologist. You are both contextually and in-thread simply inadequate to that task, and your own writing gives the lie to your ostensible underlying concerns.

You are not credible. I have said extremely plainly why. Answer equally plainly or admit that you cannot by continuing to deflect and evade and squirm.

 

[LAHomedog]

I was wondering the same thing.

Me three? Who was that aimed at and why? I thought trolling?

 

[XerXesXu]

And NO guy ever, bought a size "small" condom

The major brand of condoms here is Trust. In the 90's, during the aids scare, they did the socially responsible thing and supplied condoms free to the Mamasans who distributed them to the girls. Their quid pro quo was a beauty pageant organised for the girls for which they received free publicity. The winner was crowned Miss Trust. All the Kanos thought that was an appropriate title because, if you used the girls' issue, you'd have to go through the finiky, but not unpleasant, process of retrieval.

It was worrying, and entrepreneurs made money by selling imports to those who hadn't brought their own. They still do.

 

[CyranoJ]

Me three? Who was that aimed at and why? I thought trolling?

I was vaguely curious: the poster's past history shows recent posts complaining about how it's always "liberals" who bring up race, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was aimed at me given the timing. Not that it matters much.

 

[XerXesXu]

Actually, the way it works is that your choice of words is subject to questioning, same as anyone else's, and especially when the choice is tendentious or nonsensical. That's how that really works. I take it you're deflecting because you can't actually disagree with the point being made, yes?



If you engage in pointed rhetoric, expect pointed responses. You were attempting to portray SimonDoom as a rape apologist. You are both contextually and in-thread simply inadequate to that task, and your own writing gives the lie to your ostensible underlying concerns.

You are not credible. I have said extremely plainly why. Answer equally plainly or admit that you cannot by continuing to deflect and evade and squirm.

“Actually, the way it works is that your choice of words is subject to questioning, same as anyone else's, and especially when the choice is tendentious or nonsensical. That's how that really works.”

Then ask a question. Let me help you. You want to know if my choice of words was provocative. Of course it was. In my opinion, it was neither tendentious nor nonsensical, I only changed one word in Simon’s response. You want to know if I was making a point? Yes, that’s how it’s done. What did I hope to provoke? Considered responses dealing with concerns and similar raised by the OP? Yes. Common and vulgar abuse? No.

“I take it you're deflecting because you can't actually disagree with the point being made, yes?”

Again, you drift. Are you suggesting I disagree with Simon’s stand, that it’s fantasy and may cause very little harm, or KeithD’s point that if it’s gay it’s OK, if you don’t like it, fuck off, or the argument that if you couldn’t write dark stuff you could only write pap?

“You are not credible. I have said extremely plainly why. Answer equally plainly or admit that you cannot by continuing to deflect and evade and squirm.”

Which question do you not find credible? I admit nothing. I’ll only ever break down and confess in one of your dark fantasies.

 

[CyranoJ]

or your argument that if you couldn’t write dark stuff you could only write pap?

Since you've clearly lost track of which poster you're even responding to, I'm going to give you some time to back up and re-orient. It's only fair. I'll look back in when you actually know what gordo12 has said vs. what I've said.

 

[XerXesXu]

Since you've clearly lost track of which poster you're even responding to, I'm going to give you some time to back up and re-orient. It's only fair. I'll look back in when you actually know what gordo12 has said vs. what I've said.

Don't feel that you need to hurry back on my account. But thank you for the tip. I'll change 'your' to 'the'. I hope that'll make you feel better.

 

[CyranoJ]

Don't feel that you need to hurry back on my account. But thank you for the tip. I'll change 'your' to 'the'. I hope that'll make you feel better.

I mean, if you're sure. I take it you're positive there's not a bunch of other parts of the thread you're conflating my posts with? Mine will have my 'nym right next to them, to be clear.

Okay, then, let's proceed:

You want to know if my choice of words was provocative. Of course it was. In my opinion, it was neither tendentious nor nonsensical, I only changed one word in Simon’s response.

Yes. Fairly crucial word, though. The statement that women do have rape fantasies is a demonstrable, actual fact. That rapists have rape fantasies is also a demonstrable and actual fact. This does not mean they're interchangeable, or that acknowledging the first means minimizing or avoiding the second.

Simon perhaps didn't quite know what to do with this sleight-of-hand: but I've seen it before. And it's bullshit. And I'm pretty sure that you know it's bullshit. It is false equivalency: the noncon fantasies of women and the noncon fantasies of predators of any gender are not equivalent. The "gotcha" strategy you attempted with the switch-out is not nearly the interesting or compelling point you imagine it to be. And you don't in fact possess the "moral" pedigree to make your supposed interest in this point stick (not that I'm sure any of us would).

Let's just start there. I'll delve into the remainder of your reply as it becomes necessary.

 

[LAHomedog]

I was vaguely curious: the poster's past history shows recent posts complaining about how it's always "liberals" who bring up race, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was aimed at me given the timing. Not that it matters much.

Maybe me since I was the OP...

 

[CyranoJ]

Maybe me since I was the OP...

Also a possibility, but that would be bizarre. I'm actually confrontational, while your post was thoroughly inoffensive. Who knows with some people, though.

 

[umamienne]

Please stop.

Finally! This is the first time I've been able to post on the forums (account login wierdness). How is this one of the biggest topics?

It's amazing to see the transition, skipping from the first page of comments to the last, and how removed it is from the original question. The original question was, "But is it racist to cowtow to the BBC myth of pornography?" It's a very simple, self-searching and honest question. How has this thread been going on for over a year?

Yes, people are frustrated when they get stereotyped by porn; those "harmless fantasies" in porn are ridiculous in most cases. What it does, is perpetuate the idea that "this race is this way." which is basically assuming that left-handed people have made a pact with Lucifer. Saying that black men have huge ding-dongs is kind of like saying that left-handed people should been burned at the stake. I'm also sad that I have to put it in those terms.

Write what you know. If you're white and feel comfortable writing in that world, do it. I introduce characters with no mention of race at all. I actually make it a point to never describe the appearance of side characters. And each character I focus on, if they happen to be a different race, I'll introduce if there's something valuable to the story.

Why?

Good writing is about good characters first. Then get sexy! If there's a natural way of describing your characters further, maybe it can come out in dialogue. In a recent story I had a character named Marisol who is hispanic. The reason I wrote about this character is that I'm a white American, but lived in Mexico when I was young, and have a lot of in-law family there via my uncle.

I love them, I love the people there, I love their culture. The character was a small tribute to how close and overbearing and communicative and beautiful and frustrating the family structure is in Mexico.

The point is that I empathize DEEPLY with this character, I want them to feel real and living. Not a cartoon. If you feel the need to devolve to "fiery redheads" or "big black cocks" or "shy asian" why not ignore those descriptions? Make a character that breathes.

Beyond that, I don't know what else I can say. If you're white and want to write about other races, learn about them first or just never bring up race. This isn't a SJW thing, it just sucks for the stereotyped person they read about. It's just about character-centric writing. If your character is 2D it's just a story about dumb cartoon characters fucking.

Can we have a Mod close this thread? I think the original poster had an honest question and it turned into arguments about phenotypes and bizarre things that have nothing to do with anything.

Write what you know
Write with empathy
Write a good character

The rest falls into place. Can we close this case?

PS - I've learned to not shame people if someone's Yum is someone else's Yuck. When it comes to race, ethnicity and culture, if you don't learn about them before you write about them... you're really missing out on writing GOOD story.

 

[CyranoJ]

I think @umamienne has a fair point.

 

[XerXesXu]

I mean, if you're sure. I take it you're positive there's not a bunch of other parts of the thread you're conflating my posts with? Mine will have my 'nym right next to them, to be clear.

Okay, then, let's proceed:



Yes. Fairly crucial word, though. The statement that women do have rape fantasies is a demonstrable, actual fact. That rapists have rape fantasies is also a demonstrable and actual fact. This does not mean they're interchangeable, or that acknowledging the first means minimizing or avoiding the second.

Simon perhaps didn't quite know what to do with this sleight-of-hand: but I've seen it before. And it's bullshit. And I'm pretty sure that you know it's bullshit. It is false equivalency: the noncon fantasies of women and the noncon fantasies of predators of any gender are not equivalent. The "gotcha" strategy you attempted with the switch-out is not nearly the interesting or compelling point you imagine it to be. And you don't in fact possess the "moral" pedigree to make your supposed interest in this point stick (not that I'm sure any of us would).

Let's just start there. I'll delve into the remainder of your reply as it becomes necessary.

“Yes. Fairly crucial word, though.”

That’s why I changed it. Again, that’s simply the way it’s done.

“The statement that women do have rape fantasies is a demonstrable, actual fact. That rapists have rape fantasies is also a demonstrable and actual fact. This does not mean they're interchangeable”

"It is false equivalency: the noncon fantasies of women and the noncon fantasies of predators of any gender are not equivalent."

Since you did the courtesy of scanning my works I’ve returned the courtesy. I now understand your resistance to conceiving that others may have a different perspective to you … on both racial stereotyping and non-consent. What if a big black convicted rapist is sharing fantasies about the rape with a white female interviewer and becomes so inflamed by his fantasies that he rapes her in identical fashion. In my book the fantasy fantasies of woman and rapist are not only interchangeable, not only equivalent, they’re the same fantasy.

“Simon perhaps didn't quite know what to do with this sleight-of-hand:”

I’ll take that as a compliment. You think I’m cleverer than I am. It’s the oldest riposte in the book. And it’s there because it’s a valid thing to do, it concentrates minds, refines arguments.

“And you don't in fact possess the "moral" pedigree to make your supposed interest in this point stick (not that I'm sure any of us would)”

If you'll tell me the moral pedigree I require to speak on an open forum I'll strive to raise my moral pedigree to match the giddy heights, presumably of yours.

 

[KeithD]

Good writing is about good characters first.

A good story can be as much because the plotline is excellent or how the setting is depicted (although it can be argued that presenting an excellent setting is making it a character). I often see this singular glorification of character. But that's not all that is a play in making a good story--or even necessarily the most important element at play.

This digresses from the thread, but I think it's an important point to make to developing writers, and this board tends to salivate over characterization as much as it does over lotsandlots of words.

On the question of stereotyping, this a wide-ranging story site. My observation for what pleases the most readers here is zingy arousal and quick release, and stereotyping is just fine with a big percentage of the Web site's readership--very comforting, in fact. Doesn't mean those who write otherwise can't have a good audience here too. It's just that I see so many "you have to write what I write and with the views I have" threads posted to the board. This is one of them.

What flies here is what Laurel passes into the file. What gets a good readership here is what satisfies some subset of the readership here.

A good story at Literotica can be whatever gives a reader multiple orgasms while they are reading it. (And surprise, surprise, that might include good writing too--AND objectification of the characters if they give good sex.)

 

[CyranoJ]

Again, that’s simply the way it’s done.

Simply the way something is done, anyway. Whether that something is honest inquiry would appear to be a separate question.

Since you did the courtesy of scanning my works I’ve returned the courtesy. I now understand your resistance to conceiving that others may have a different perspective to you … on both racial stereotyping and non-consent.

I have no such resistance. My work can speak for itself on its own merits or demerits. I already told you absolutely point-blank and in so many words that I don't think I'm "better" than you or that my work is categorically in some morally superior register. I don't believe I'm unimpeachable: I just don't believe that you are, either, or that you would have any more grounds than I would to attempt what you're attempting. That's all.

Again, you thought you had a worm on a hook. And yet again: it's you who is deflecting. It's you who is squirming. That must be uncomfortable for you. It's not uncomfortable for me. I was upfront from the jump about where I'm coming from... and you. Fucking. Know. It.

I'll take this latest lame segue for what little it's worth, and bid you good day. Have a nice life.

 

[JaxRhapsody]

Very often true. There actually are people under the "progressive" banner who are genuinely annoying or even toxic, but all too frequently, the people bitching about "wokeness" have no idea who or why or what the difference is. It's often just a blanket dismissal of Stuff That Makes Them Feel Seen.

That said:



For my money, the really annoying flavor of wokescold are the ones who aren't there for any particular cause, but just to burnish their self-image as heroes of radicalism, boost their Twitter follows and maybe get to cyberbully someone into the bargain while pretending virtue. There's a whole ecosystem of fauxgressives like this; it describes a bunch of Bernie Sanders' former campaign staffers and the bulk of their following. They are a thing and they do suck. Mercifully, they're not that numerous in the greater scheme of things.

And all of that said: even these are far less annoying than the kind of thinly-veiled supremacist who is only ever in a thread about "race" to talk bullshit about how BLM are supposedly the real racists (and similar drivel).



I do feel this.

Yeah, the terms of woke and progressive and probably liberal has been twisted. The bunch I'm mostly refering to, are the ones who "reeeee" like some sort of screech owl of social justice, everytime they hear something they don't like, and want you to see things their way... with force, trying to cancel people left and right, and say things like; "if you don't want to date a fat/trans person, then you're fat/trans phobic. Full stop."

There's the progressive liberal who's like; "fuck it, let the trans use the bathroom they want, shit."

And then there's; "YOU WILL FUCKING LET THEM USE WHATEVER BATHROOM THEY WANT, OR YOU'RE A TRANSPHOBIC PIECE OF SHIT!!!!!"

 

[JaxRhapsody]

I think this demands too much. I don't claim to have any particular insight. I'm a middle-aged white man with no special education or background that gives me any meaningful insight on this topic. Zero. None. I deny, categorically, that a special level of insight into interracial issues is a necessary precondition to writing a story of this type. The only precondition is . . . I want to.

My purpose for writing the story is to write a story that I think is erotic and interesting and will seem erotic and interesting to others. It may bother some people. My incest stories bother some people. So do yours. People may question why I write the story, or what my motives are, and I don't really give a damn. If someone reads the story and concludes, well, he must be a racist, then my conclusion is that that person is a damn fool and is an unintelligent reader. I'm not going to let my desire to write a story be thwarted by the existence of foolish readers.

I'm also reasonably confident, based on my experience at Literotica, that readers will not, in fact, conclude I'm a racist and stop reading my stories. Some might. I'm fairly confident that the risk of this is very small, even if I did care about it, which I don't.

I would analogize it to rape fantasies. Rape, in the real world, is an awful crime, which causes lasting trauma to its victims. Yet, it is a fact that women have rape fantasies. Why? Who knows? One can analyze that question until the cows come home. But in the meantime, there's an appetite for stories that serve that fantasy, and I see nothing wrong with writing such stories or reading such stories. That's my aesthetic philosophy. Others think differently. I see the indulgence of "white woman/black bull" fantasies exactly the same way. We can have a fascinating conversation for hours and hours about why people have such fantasies and how troubling they are, but in the meantime, the fantasies exist, and my view is if people want to indulge those fantasies, let them.

It's fantasy, folks. Just keep that in mind.

All you can do is not give a fuck, and write it. Ultimately the only opinon that matters is Laurel on the sense of; it's her choice whether it goes live or not.

 

[XerXesXu]

I'll take this latest lame segue for what little it's worth, and bid you good day. Have a nice life.

And I gave you 5*. Well constructed and well written.

 

[CyranoJ]

And I gave you 5*. Well constructed and well written.

That's very nice of you. When I get to give your stories a proper read I promise likewise to do them due justice.

 

[LAHomedog]

1) How has this thread been going on for over a year?

2) Good writing is about good characters first. Then get sexy! If there's a natural way of describing your characters further, maybe it can come out in dialogue.

3) Can we have a Mod close this thread? I think the original poster had an honest question and it turned into arguments about phenotypes and bizarre things that have nothing to do with anything.

A highly thoughtful post. I am the orginal poster with the question so please allow me the following to the points I highlighted above.

1) This thread is only 48 hours old -- actually a bit shorter as I post this. Not a year. You accidentally misread that. I'll admit it would be cool if it had been a year, but nope.

2) I come from the world of television and I'm all character all the time, but gotta disagree with you on this one and agree with Keith. Yes, character is important, but so is plot, story narrative, setting, all kinds of action, mood, etc. Chandler ain't Chandler without the plot. Bosch ain't Bosch without the plot. "Star Wars" is nothing without the Death Star and the actual war. Same of "Saving Private Ryan." It's not as riveting without the attack on Omaha Beach.

3) Why close the thread? It is only 48 hours old and a spirited and lively debate and exchange of ideas is occurring between a lot of smart, thoughtful, talented writers. I'm learning a lot in general, and about my fellow authors. I say, let it roll!

 

[JaxRhapsody]

Finally! This is the first time I've been able to post on the forums (account login wierdness). How is this one of the biggest topics?

It's amazing to see the transition, skipping from the first page of comments to the last, and how removed it is from the original question. The original question was, "But is it racist to cowtow to the BBC myth of pornography?" It's a very simple, self-searching and honest question. How has this thread been going on for over a year?

Yes, people are frustrated when they get stereotyped by porn; those "harmless fantasies" in porn are ridiculous in most cases. What it does, is perpetuate the idea that "this race is this way." which is basically assuming that left-handed people have made a pact with Lucifer. Saying that black men have huge ding-dongs is kind of like saying that left-handed people should been burned at the stake. I'm also sad that I have to put it in those terms.

Write what you know. If you're white and feel comfortable writing in that world, do it. I introduce characters with no mention of race at all. I actually make it a point to never describe the appearance of side characters. And each character I focus on, if they happen to be a different race, I'll introduce if there's something valuable to the story.

Why?

Good writing is about good characters first. Then get sexy! If there's a natural way of describing your characters further, maybe it can come out in dialogue. In a recent story I had a character named Marisol who is hispanic. The reason I wrote about this character is that I'm a white American, but lived in Mexico when I was young, and have a lot of in-law family there via my uncle.

I love them, I love the people there, I love their culture. The character was a small tribute to how close and overbearing and communicative and beautiful and frustrating the family structure is in Mexico.

The point is that I empathize DEEPLY with this character, I want them to feel real and living. Not a cartoon. If you feel the need to devolve to "fiery redheads" or "big black cocks" or "shy asian" why not ignore those descriptions? Make a character that breathes.

Beyond that, I don't know what else I can say. If you're white and want to write about other races, learn about them first or just never bring up race. This isn't a SJW thing, it just sucks for the stereotyped person they read about. It's just about character-centric writing. If your character is 2D it's just a story about dumb cartoon characters fucking.

Can we have a Mod close this thread? I think the original poster had an honest question and it turned into arguments about phenotypes and bizarre things that have nothing to do with anything.

Write what you know
Write with empathy
Write a good character

The rest falls into place. Can we close this case?

PS - I've learned to not shame people if someone's Yum is someone else's Yuck. When it comes to race, ethnicity and culture, if you don't learn about them before you write about them... you're really missing out on writing GOOD story.

Funny thing is; if you just write arbitrary race-less characters and use neutral or seemingly neutral names... people will just assume characters are white. You're perogative to avoid racial stereotypes, archetypes, espcially if you don't know enough about a race(despite racial monoliths not existing), it's rather admirable, many do say leave things to the readers imagination, you can still give a bit of direction to the word forged pictures you create. This is something black writers have talked about; white being default, by whatever reason. Sometimes names and actions can give an idea stereotypically, but given reality that blacks, whites, whatever often share same spaces and have similar infuences, like rap music, living in low class areas, and anime, it can come down to names. Who is Skyler Phillips, David Johnson, and Laquan Jenkins? I think the former and latter can easilly be figured out, the middle can go either way.