Received: 15 May 2017 Revised: 8 August 2017 Accepted: 11 August 2017

DOI: 10.1111/soc4.12531

ARTICLE

Does (mixed‐)race matter? The role of race in

interracial sex, dating, and marriage
Shantel Gabrieal Buggs

Department of Sociology, Florida State

University
Correspondence
Shantel Gabrieal Buggs, Department of
Sociology, Florida State University, 518
Bellamy Building, 113 Collegiate Avenue,
Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA.
Email: sbuggs@fsu.edu
Abstract
Though sociologists have long focused on the role of race as a
dynamic in romantic and sexual relationships, there is currently lim-
ited research on the experiences of mixed‐race people and the ways
their racial identities may be influencing how people navigate race
and/or ethnicity as part of these intimate relationships. Due to the
increase in the number of Americans—in both opposite‐sex and
same‐sex relationships—reporting partners of a different race or
ethnic background between the 2000 and 2010 censuses, race,
and intimacy remain at the forefront of mainstream social concerns.
However, research exploring how multiracial people—a rapidly
growing population—fit in these trends is underrepresented. In this
review, I discuss the existing research on race, dating, and marriage,
particularly the meanings attached to interracial relationships in an
online era. I also assess how recent research has begun to discuss
the impact of mixed‐race identity on intimate relationships both
online and offline.

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N

Amidst an assortment of studies of race and online dating that have made a mainstream splash in the last several years,
the findings that Black women and Asian men are among the least desirable among heterosexual online daters
(Feliciano, Robnett, & Komaie, 2009; Lin & Lundquist, 2013; Lundquist & Lin, 2015; Robnett & Feliciano, 2011; Rudder,
2014; Tsunokai, McGrath, & Kavanagh, 2014) gained particular traction. These findings contribute to an ongoing con-
versation around sexual racism, the prioritizing of possible romantic partners in a way that reinforces racial hierarchies
or racial stereotypes (Bedi, 2015, p. 998). Though sexual racism is an issue that has been the focus of many studies of gay
online daters (Caluya, 2008; Paul, Ayala, & Choi, 2010; Robinson, 2008; Robinson, 2015; Wilson et al., 2009), it is not a
new concept. Stember (1976) argued that race relations in the United States were shaped by fears around social prox-
imity that might lead to sexual contact, specifically discussing Black and White race relations. For Stember, sexual racism
manifested in White men's “sexual jealousy”; they worked to prevent Black men from engaging in any form of intimacy
with White women. The relationship between these factors is further elaborated upon in Collins's (2000) work, where
she describes a sexualized racism that accounts for how race, gender, and sexuality are tied together to inform how
people—particularly Black women—are viewed and treated (see her discussion of the controlling images of the mammy,
jezebel, and sapphire). Sociologists continue to have an interest in issues surrounding interracial intimacy, aiming to

Sociology Compass. 2017;e12531. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/soc4 © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 1 of 13
https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12531
2 of 13 BUGGS

understand how social inequality is perpetuated and, more recently, translated to digital spaces. It is within this
burgeoning field that scholars are beginning to make interventions regarding the impact that multiracial identity (both
self‐identified and perceived) may have in online and offline dating dynamics.
Though “interracial relationship” can be used to describe anything from friendship to a sexual encounter, this
review understands this term as a pairing wherein people who identify with different racial or ethnic groups engage
in a romantic and/or sexual relationship, inclusive of dating, marriage, and cohabitation. The U.S. Census Bureau
(2012) has shown an increase in the number of interracial relationships since the 1967 Loving v. Virginia Supreme
Court decision—seeing a 28% increase in interracial or interethnic (heterosexual) married couples between 2000
and 2010. Yet the majority of people in interracial relationships are unmarried. A U.S. Census brief on households
and families showed that nationally, 10% of all opposite‐sex marriages had partners of a “different race or Hispanic
origin” compared to 18% of opposite‐sex unmarried partners and 21% of same‐sex unmarried partners (Lofquist,
Lugaila, O'Connell, & Feliz, 2012). Alongside the attention paid to these interracial couples comes recognition of
the number of those who identify as mixed race, meaning that they choose two or more possible racial or ethnic iden-
tity options on the census. Despite mainstream claims that “eventually, we'll all be mixed,” multiracial people comprise
a marginal segment of the population, a mere 2.9% nationally in 2010 (Jones & Bullock, 2012). The aforementioned
shifting demographics, coupled with the fact that as of 2013, 10% of babies under age 1 were multiracial (Pew
Research Center, 2015), are used among mass media to push a narrative of a “post‐racial” society. For instance,
Asian‐American comedian Wong (2014) quipped that this “magic mixed‐race future” will be defined by members of
our society having “fucked the hate out of everyone and in the process, thousands of years of colonialism, violence,
and systemic oppression,” which will “disappear into the ‘interesting facial features’ of mixed‐race people.” It is with
these notions in mind that this review assesses the existing sociological research on race and sex, dating, and marriage,
with attention to dating and marriage markets, interracial relationships, and an assessment of new research that
focuses on multiraciality within intimate relationships.

2 | S T U D Y I N G I N T I M A T E R E LA T I O N S H I P S A N D D A T I N G / M A R R I A G E
MARKETS

Historically, fears about racial mixing were upheld by the legal barring of miscegenation—marriage, cohabitation, and/
or sexual relations between people of different racial backgrounds—mostly due to concerns about mixed‐race children
and the erosion of, or contamination of, Whiteness. These fears are especially potent in relation to immigrant popu-
lations, with scholarly analysis primarily concerned with the ability of immigrants to assimilate (see Alba & Nee, 1997),
often through the multilayered concept of social mobility (see Zhou & Lee, 2007) or marriage (see Lichter, Brown,
Qian, & Carmalt, 2007). As Stember (1976) implies, the race problem in the United States is a sex problem. Yancey's
(2002) position that understanding who is willing to engage in interracial relationships is useful for evaluating the
degree to which social distance in the United States has decreased and how far society has progressed has served
as a motivating factor for a litany of studies of interracial dating, cohabitation, and marriage (Blau, Beeker, &
Fitzpatrick, 1984; Fujino, 1997; Gordon, 1964; Qian, 1997; Qian & Lichter, 2001, 2007, 2011; Sung, 1990; Tucker
& Mitchell‐Kernan, 1990; Yancey & Yancey, 1997, 1998). Though Yancey (2002) contends that it should not be
assumed that those who interracially date are the same as who will interracially marry, he does suggest that
researchers can use interracial unions as a means of tracking racial assimilation (pp. 179–180), even as he finds that
with greater degrees of commitment (e.g., marriage), the tendency to associate with others of similar backgrounds
increases (see also Blackwell & Lichter, 2004; Joyner & Kao, 2005). The uptick in cohabitation among all Americans
adds another dimension to this research, particularly in terms of understanding contemporary families and child rear-
ing (Lundberg & Pollack, 2014). For instance, Rosenfeld and Kim (2005) argue that increases in both interracial and
same‐sex coupling are indicative of less parental control over mate choice, with interracial and same‐sex couples being
more urban and mobile than are same‐race married couples.
BUGGS 3 of 13

The attempts by scholars to map marriage markets—the pool(s) of potential partners available for dating, cohab-
itation, or marriage—are one of the most common means of trying to discern how people are developing intimate rela-
tionships (based on the assumption that marriage is the most “intimate” of all relationships). However, it cannot be
assumed that because a relationship is intimate, in that people have committed to being in a relationship with each
other, that there are no social inequalities to contend with. As literature has shown, race does not disappear in rela-
tionships that traverse racial lines (Childs, 2005; Dalmage, 2000; Frankenberg, 1993; Nemoto, 2009; Root, 2001;
Steinbugler, 2012; Twine, 2010). Beeman (2007) notes that societal opposition to interracial intimacy stems from
emotional segregation, the institutionalized process wherein Whites are unable to see people of color as emotional
equals or as capable of sharing the same human emotions. In framing Black people in particular as incapable of
experiencing intimacy, irrational fears and breakdowns in empathy become widespread (Beeman, 2007, p. 690). These
emotional barriers shore up the contemporary understandings of sexual racism (Bedi, 2015) wherein certain people
are prioritized over others as potential romantic or sexual partners.
It is evident that race becomes a component that partners in a given relationship must manage. For instance,
Nemoto (2009) notes that while Asian‐American women are desired by White men as spouses due to their alleged
hyperfemininity and idealized sexuality, Asian‐American men do not experience the same degrees of desire, with their
White female partners often engaging in racially essentialist discourses to explain why these men make (un)satisfac-
tory partners. This logic plays on notions that Asian men are not sexually desirable and incapable of engaging in emo-
tional support. Nemoto argues that women who attempt to masculinize their husbands with problematic discourses
that suggest that Asian culture makes them inherently more patriarchal and oppressive only serve to marginalize Asian
men further as desirable partners. Further, according to Steinbugler (2012), successful long‐term interracial relation-
ships require intimate racework—the routine actions and strategies through which individuals maintain close relation-
ships across lines of racial stratification—where boundaries of public and private must be negotiated and partners
must perform emotional labor, among other kinds of work such as management of visibility and public displays of
affection (pp. 45–73). Racework proves to be heavily gendered labor, whether in heterosexual or gay and lesbian part-
nerships, suggesting that for any person to achieve success in a given dating and marriage market depends upon the
way(s) in which they negotiate racial boundaries and the ability of themselves and their partner(s) to perform the nec-
essary labor of recognizing when discrimination happens and providing support, acknowledging when the color line
has been “tripped” upon (Dalmage, 2000) and created disjunction in the relationship.

2.1 | Interracial intimacy online and offline

Of course, for many people, issues with race in one's romantic life begin via the Internet or in college as part of the
“hookup culture.” In their study of same‐sex online daters, Rafalow, Feliciano, and Robnett (2017) state that racialized
gender hierarchies are especially salient for White gay and lesbian daters, with lesbians of color being the most open
in their dating preferences and White daters being the most likely to reject partners of a different race from them. As
noted above, a variety of studies have demonstrated that White online daters across sexual orientations remain
privileged in terms of likelihood to be messaged online or to receive responses to their messages (Lin & Lundquist,
2013; Lundquist & Lin, 2015). Others show that daters will “cleanse” their online dating platform of undesirable
non‐White bodies through “personal preferences” (Feliciano, Lee, & Robnett, 2011; Robinson, 2015) or notions of
attractiveness (Rudder, 2014). Further, Spell's (2017) research finds that it is necessary to recognize that Asian men
and non‐White women face additional barriers to their participation in hookups, the noncommittal unions focused
on sexual acts from kissing to sexual intercourse (pp. 183–184). In fact, McClintock (2010) suggests that Asian women
and Black men have the greatest tendency to hook up interracially possibly due to the ways that others—namely,
White people—exhibit fetishistic preferences for them (p. 69). Wilkins (2009) elaborates further, noting that Black
men who pursue interracial relationships must negotiate racialized gendered stereotypes through the use of interracial
talk: “player” talk and “intimacy” talk. These forms of talk are a response to the fetishizing logics that McClintock
4 of 13 BUGGS

(2010) and other scholars reference. These findings provide additional evidence of the ways power dynamics and
racialized preferences determine how intimate certain relationships can be.

3 | APPLYING HISTORICAL THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO RACE AND

INTI MACY

The above findings are not necessarily surprising given that Nagel (2003) argues that differences of color, culture, coun-
try, ancestry, language, and religion are the materials that build ethnic, racial, and national identities and boundaries. She
asserts that these ethnic boundaries are also sexual boundaries. In the United States, Nagel claims that the sexual under-
lies everything and magnifies the racial; therefore, it is important to recognize where race and sex intersect as intimates,
giving power to one another. Davis (1983) notes that racism has relied upon the assumption that White men possess “an
incontestable right of access” to Black women's bodies (p. 175). Further, accessibility to the bodies of women of color
has a colonial legacy, rooted in perceptions that women of color are “creatures of the flesh” who “hide their pleasure” to
fuel fantasies of invincible masculinity (Bhattacharyya, 1998, pp. 130–133). The ethnosexual frontiers created through
these colonial legacies are the erotic locations and exotic destinations that are “surveilled and supervised, patrolled and
policed, regulated and restricted” and constantly penetrated by individuals “forging sexual links with ethnic others
across ethnic borders” (Nagel, 2003, p. 14). These legacies inform racial fetishization, the racist stereotyping that defines
the racial other as fixed and knowable, often simultaneously demonizing and idolizing certain aspects of racial differ-
ence. Racial fetishization has a long history in intimate relationships, revolving around the objectification of the bodies
of people of color (see hooks, 1992; McClintock, 1995). Though Nagel (2003) describes various forms of sexual contact
—ranging from those who establish long‐term liaisons to those who undertake “expeditions” across ethnic divides for
recreational, casual, or “exotic” sexual encounters (p. 14)—she suggests that sexual intimacy allows some people to
assimilate. This lines up with the logic of the marriage market, in that assimilation occurs through intermarriage (which
is essentially, assimilation through interracial sex and/or intimacy).
In the midst of these sexual stereotypes, sexual racism has particularly been an issue in the realm of online dating,
where users—rather than being free from the constraints of social structures of difference (Chow‐White, 2006)—must
contend with power dynamics (Nakamura, 2001, 2008) and objectification (Phua & Kaufman, 2003; Wilson et al.,
2009). Legal scholar Bedi (2015) attests that sexual racism is a matter of injustice, a reflection of the problematic con-
ditions that have historically structured society and an insidious issue that renders online dating websites as sites of
public concern. Amidst this debate about whether racial preferences in romantic and sexual partners is equitable to
so‐called generic racism (Callander, Newman, & Holt, 2015), it has even been suggested by some researchers (Wu,
Chen, & Greenberger, 2015) that those who date interracially are more attractive than are those who date
intraracially, thus creating allegedly more beautiful biracial children. This only serves to shore up the “biracial beauty
myth” (Sims, 2012) and put mixed‐race people in a position to be fetishized. Because inferred beliefs and expectations
about a given sexual experience are influenced by the race of those in the relationship (Wilson et al., 2009), sexual
racism and racial fetishism more broadly are integral parts of dating experiences, whether online or not. Though it
is possible that mixed‐race people may not be viewed through a “primitive” lens, the discourses that construct their
bodies as beautiful (Haritaworn, 2009; Sharpley‐Whiting, 2007) do render mixed‐race people as racial Others capable
of providing pleasure and fulfilling romantic and sexual fantasies (Bhattacharyya, 1998; hooks, 1992), especially the
fantasy of color blindness.

4 | CONTENDING WITH MULTIRACIALITY IN SEX, DATING, AND

MARRIAGE

Qian and Lichter (2011) identify the expanding mixed‐race population as one aspect of “rapidly shifting marriage mar-
ket conditions” (p. 1066), suggesting that there is a need for analyses of the romantic experiences of mixed‐race
BUGGS 5 of 13

people in the United States. Further, sociological studies more broadly consistently rely upon the assumption that
individuals seek to cohabitate or marry because they expect to be better off in these relationships than single (Guzzo,
2006; Lundberg & Pollack, 1993), though these logics have been challenged by queering understandings of family,
especially for queer women of color (see Acosta, 2013; Moore, 2011). In fact, sociological work on health emphasizes
the role of both quantity and quality of social relationships (see Umberson & Moretz, 2010); thus, there are relevant
reasons for studying how people end up in committed relationships and what barriers there may be for certain pop-
ulations participating in various dating and marriage markets. While the racial boundaries of the “market” are shaped
by structural conditions (Blau et al., 1984)—such as racial attitudes; racial and ethnic segregation; and demographic
shifts due to influxes of immigrant populations (Qian & Lichter, 2007, 2011)—opportunities are further constrained
by socio‐economic status and factors like level of education. The suggestion by Qian and Lichter (2011) that an
expanding mixed‐race population may undermine what social scientists understand about dating and marriage mar-
kets implies that there is something “different” about the way that the mixed‐race population dates and/or marries.
While there is limited evidence that mixed‐race people engage in dating, cohabitating, or marrying any differently
from other racialized bodies in the United States, it is critical to understand how the inclusion of mixed‐race people
in these analyses frames the racial boundaries of possible “markets” in particular ways.
As McGrath, Tsunokai, Schultz, Kavanagh, and Tarrence (2016) argue, studies of the dating preferences of mixed‐
race people in the United States remain underdeveloped (p. 1921). Interchangeably referred to by scholars as “mixed‐
race,” “biracial,” “multiracial,” or “multiethnic,” the multiracial population in the United States is one of the fastest
growing groups. Between 2000 and 2010, the number of people identifying as two or more races grew by 2.2 million
people, an increase of nearly a third (Jones & Bullock, 2012). Despite this growth, the category of mixed‐race remains
contested for several reasons, such as (a) the initial push for Census recognition of multiple racial identities in the
1990s coming from White parents who felt slighted by the racial identities available to their children (DaCosta,
2007) and (b) continued variability in measurement of those identifying as such. Yet numerous scholars have dedi-
cated research to this population, and increasingly, several sociologists have begun to explore the relationship
between mixedness (self‐identified and perceived) and racial inequality in online dating (see Buggs, 2017; Curington,
Lin, & Lundquist, 2015; Feliciano et al., 2009, 2011; Feliciano & Kizer, 2016; McGrath et al., 2016; Robnett &
Feliciano, 2011; Tsunokai et al., 2014). Specifically, these studies tend to emphasize biracial, White/non‐White mixed
individuals. In the following sections, I will provide an overview of research that contends with multiraciality focusing
on topics such as honorary Whiteness, colorism and boundary crossing, racework and racial capital, and gendered
multiraciality.

4.1 | Honorary Whiteness

For Bonilla‐Silva (2013), Latin Americanization of the United States will allow color‐blind racism to flourish, as it
enables Whites to claim to believe in racial equality, integration, and interracial marriage and yet continue to exist
in extensively White networks and relationships (pp. 230–231). Bonilla‐Silva's (2013) inclusion of honorary Whites
in his racial framework facilitates an understanding of why certain racial groups—like Latinos, Asian‐Americans, or
those deemed mixed‐race—are more likely to marry Whites (Qian, 1997; Qian & Lichter, 2001, 2011) while also
acknowledging that their honorary status does not necessarily equate to equal power to determine the dynamics of
their dating and/or marital relationships (Frankenberg, 1993; Nemoto, 2009; Steinbugler, 2012). Honorary status sug-
gests that those with White‐reading privilege or who benefit from being non‐Black people of color assist in the main-
tenance of an anti‐Black (tri‐)racial hierarchy. Though individuals can work toward not upholding anti‐Blackness,
socialization remains powerful. For instance, some scholars have indicated that Asian and Latino/a people will prefer
to have few to no Black people in their hypothetical imaginings of mixed neighborhoods (see Charles, 2006, pp. 131–
162), thereby reducing opportunities for multiracial networks and consequently reducing the likelihood of dating or
marrying “out” (see Qian & Lichter, 2001, 2007, 2011; Yancey, 2002, etc.).
6 of 13 BUGGS

According to Rockquemore and Arend (2002), those who fall into honorary Whiteness are “culturally White” but
can be barred from full inclusion within Whiteness due to phenotype (p. 59). Thus, the racial position for multiracial
people is inconsistent, seemingly one of honorary Whiteness or as part of the collective Black, perpetuating a
White–non‐White binary of race. Though this binary is problematic, it is relevant when discussing dating dynamics,
as several scholars (Curington et al., 2015; Hunter, 2005; Rondilla & Spickard, 2007) note that colorism facilitates
the ability of partially White multiracials to hold higher social status and to garner a so‐called preference premium
in online dating spaces (Curington et al., 2015). Even Qian and Lichter (2011) note the ability of the most mobile
and assimilated mixed‐race individuals to pass as White, assuming that a connection to Whiteness means social mobil-
ity (and attractiveness in dating and marriage markets) becomes easier. Because marriage market logics operate under
the constraint of a racial hierarchy that privileges Whiteness, mixed‐race individuals can be pressured to uphold White
heteropatriarchal norms and politics of respectability in order to maintain their honorary White position, effectively
othering and marginalizing those below in the racial hierarchy.

4.2 | Colorism and boundary blurring

Based on the evidence laid out in analyses of honorary Whiteness, lighter skinned people of color can experience pref-
erential treatment. As Reece (2016) argues, simply identifying as multiracial can lead to being perceived as more
attractive. Waring (2013) argues that the exoticism attached to mixed‐race bodies is dependent upon how an
individual's phenotype manages to blur racial categorization. She suggests that this type of exoticism is different from
that of the “primitive racial other” that Whites desire to consume for a “bit of spice” (hooks, 1992); however, the
attraction to, and sexual desire for, mixed‐race people is rooted in understandings of—in Waring's case—Blackness
and Whiteness as polar opposites on binary of inferiority and superiority (p. 116). To this end, Feliciano (2016) states
that despite the growth of the multiracial population, observers tend to place people—specifically online daters—in
single race categories associating so‐called medium skin tones with Latinidad and dark skin tones with Blackness
(pp. 409–411). In line with these findings, Qian and Lichter (2011) suggest that some mixed‐race people—particularly
Asian‐White and American Indian‐White mixed individuals—have a greater ability to classify themselves as White.
Additionally, Squires (2014) notes that multiracial and multiethnic people serve as a form of safe diversity bringing
“color into the frame without conflict” (p. 7). Given that both Waring and Squires attest to the negative views attached
to Blackness even when mixed with Whiteness, it is critical to assess how these complex logics around multiraciality
as desirable or even safe play out in romantic and sexual encounters.
Qian and Lichter (2011) further propose that these tendencies of some multiracial people to classify as White
could inflate the overall level of interracial marriage with Whites and blur the racial boundaries between Whites
and Asians and American Indians. This blurring is viewed as problematic because of the noted surge in the number
of interracial marriages. For the authors, the surge signals that “social distance has declined” and that “racial tolerance
has grown” (p. 1068), implying that a blurring of the boundaries between Whites and Asians and American Indians
complicates what these increased marriage rates actually mean for racial tolerance. Yet Qian and Lichter (2011) note
that the growth of the mixed‐race population has not led to a blurring of social boundaries between Blacks and
Whites. This should not be surprising considering that there have always been people in between existing racial cat-
egories in the history of the United States. However, the trends that Qian and Lichter find in terms of partner pref-
erences seem evident in the ways that multiracial daters mixed with White are found to be less likely to seek
partners that are non‐White, especially to the detriment of Asian, Hispanic, and Black daters (Buggs, 2017; Feliciano
& Kizer, 2016; McGrath et al., 2016). As Hunter (2005) argues, lighter skinned people of color are granted privileges
over darker skinned people in areas such as income, education, housing, and the marriage market. In fact, the prefer-
ence for lighter skin is not exclusively a Black or Latino problem, as it is practiced by both Whites and people of color
(Hunter, 2005, p. 238). It is important to expand knowledge of the experiences of honorary Whites in the context of
dating and marriage, as it informs researchers of not only multiracial people's understanding(s) of racial difference but
BUGGS 7 of 13

also the ways in which sociological understandings of intimate relationships might be contested, particularly in how
sexual racism is or is not perpetuated in relationships involving mixed‐race partners.

4.3 | Racework and racial literacy/capital

Similarly to those from below them in Bonilla‐Silva's racial hierarchy, mixed‐race people are likely engaging in
racework (Steinbugler, 2012) in order to ensure the success of their relationships due to their partner(s) possessing
a particular racial habitus—a set of primary networks and associations that reinforce the racial order by fostering racial
solidarity (Bonilla‐Silva, 2013; Steinbugler, 2012)—through which to understand racial difference. Though few studies
that focus on multiracial people employ the concept of racework, many engage the need for mixed‐race people to
amass some form of capital in order to better navigate relationships with others. How a multiracial person would labor
to maintain a relationship where race is of primary concern is directly related to racial socialization and identity; as
Dworkin (2002) suggests, a biracial identity may aid in the ability to embrace a bisexual identity in that it provides a
model for existing in “gray areas” (pp. 101–102). Identity, then, provides skills for other aspects of an individual's life.
Bonam and Shih (2009) noted that the perception of a relationship as interracial for what they term a “biracial”
person was heavily dependent on whether they viewed race as a social construction. Coming to the understanding
that race is a social construction results from familial socialization and life experiences, which also determine
mixed‐race identity (Ahmed, 1997; Ali, 2003; Rockquemore, Laszloffy, & Noveske, 2006; Song, 2003; Zack, 1994).
Mixed‐race individuals engage with others—in their dating lives or otherwise—based on the racial socialization strat-
egy employed by their parents (Brunsma, 2005; Rockquemore et al., 2006). Rooted in a systemic understanding of
race where identity is comprised of a combination of parental ideologies, societal categorization, and phenotype, it
is suggested that if mixed‐race children are not prepared for racial bias, are not provided with the cultural knowledge
to make them successful people of color, or are not clear on what their racial membership is, it is likely they will be
unsure of how to approach relationships with people, whether they share racial ancestry or not (Rockquemore
et al., 2006). Twine (2010) would term this knowledge toolkit as racial literacy, which, among other things, consists
of an understanding that racial identity is a social practice, possession of a vocabulary to discuss race and racism,
and the ability to interpret racial codes and racialized practices. This is also indicative of ethnic capital, which Twine
defines as knowledge that reinforces social and political connection to racialized communities. Alternatively, Waring
(2016) terms this knowledge racial capital, a “repertoire of racial resources” inclusive of experiences, meaning, and lan-
guage that serves to facilitate Black/White biracials' negotiation of racial boundaries and interactions with both Black
and White populations. Twine notes that it is incumbent upon the parents (mainly White mothers) to foster this
knowledge in their mixed‐race children in order to enable them to function in society. Storrs (2006) also discusses
the ways that mixed‐race women in particular mobilize material culture in order to reaffirm their identity and to estab-
lish authentic relationships with others, especially knowledge of food culture. Therefore, various kinds of cultural cap-
ital—the characteristics that a person can amass or achieve that facilitates social mobility in a stratified society, such as
education, intellect, or style of speech and dress—serve as a means to reaffirm multiracial identity and as a way to
negotiate interactions with others.

4.4 | Gendered multiraciality and sexual stereotypes

As discussed earlier in this review, many women must cope with sexualized stereotypes such as the “hot and spicy
Latina” or the hypersexual Black woman (Beltrán & Fojas, 2008; Childs, 2009; Collins, 2005; hooks, 1992). The racialized
sexuality of Black and Latino individuals has an impact on the perception of mixed‐race individuals with Black or Latino
parents (Feliciano, 2016; Feliciano & Kizer, 2016; Miyawaki, 2016). Sexual stereotypes may make these mixed‐race
individuals more appealing to so‐called ethnosexual adventurers (Nagel, 2003) whom have little intention of seriously
dating or marrying them. These notions have the potential of increasing multiracial daters' appeal, if only for the fulfill-
ment of some fantasy (Alexander, 2006; Battle & Barnes, 2009; Courtney, 2005; hooks, 1992; Kempadoo, 1999).
8 of 13 BUGGS

However, it is unlikely that these racialized and gendered sexual stereotypes result in actual increased opportunities
outside of the “same race,” depending on how these mixed‐race individuals are racially read and how they identify.
There is little empirical evidence regarding how multiracial daters are racially perceived online; though many studies
of mixed‐race identity note how appearance impacts how a person chooses to identify, it is also well known that there
is no consistent phenotype for people who share similar racial mixtures. When Lin and Lundquist (2013) demonstrate
that White men and women are least likely to respond to online messages from Black men and women (while White
men are more receptive of messages from Asian and Latina women), we do not have information on the phenotypes
of these non‐White users, nor do we know how the White users are interpreting what they may be seeing in a person's
profile. However, based on the research that does exist on race and dating, it can be concluded that a number of factors
come into play to determine how a mixed‐race woman will be treated when trying to find dating partners and this is
heavily dependent upon phenotype, degree of racial fetishization, and, likely to an extent, investment in culturally spe-
cific knowledge (see Feliciano, 2016; Feliciano & Kizer, 2016; Rockquemore et al., 2006). The exoticness of a mixed‐race
individual as a potential partner increases if she has cultural knowledge—such as speaking a language other than English
—that can be deployed to shore up a particular racial identity or stereotype. As one woman in Funderburg's (1995) study
suggests, speaking another language (Danish) increases uniqueness. In fact, linguistic racialization (Chun & Lo, 2016)—
where race comes to be imagined, produced, and reified through language practices—is evidence of this phenomenon.
Thus, it is necessary to further understand how mixed‐race people sense that their bodies are being racially understood
within their intimate relationships and illuminate the ways these populations deal with existing racial dynamics within U.
S. dating and marriage markets that will be placed on them in differing ways, especially if they are able to pass in and out
of Whiteness (Saperstein & Penner, 2012) or perceived racial in‐groups (Sims, 2016).

5 | N E W D I R E C T I O N S I N (M I X E D‐ RAC E ) D ATING R ES EA RC H

As stated earlier, research into the racial aspects of dating/marriage markets tends to focus on the prevalence of inter-
racial relationships (intermarriage in particular) rather than on how gender, sexuality, and (perceived) race come
together to influence dating and marriage outcomes. This is particularly important in the face of recent research that
suggests mixed‐race people experience an increase in favorability in comparison to monoracial daters (Curington et al.,
2015; Lewis, 2013; McGrath et al., 2016; Rudder, 2014). In particular, Curington et al. (2015) argue that White/non‐
White mixed‐race online daters are a preferred group among monoracial daters, with no evidence of the “one drop
rule” negatively impacting multiracial daters chances. However, as the researchers note, they have no access to profile
pictures (p. 770) and can therefore make no claims about the role of appearance in their findings. As stated in the pre-
vious section, there are factors that can be assumed to impact multiracial dating experiences, but at present, the data
explicitly addressing this are limited. This is why new research is working on better understanding the role of multira-
cial appearance in intimate relationships. For instance, Buggs (2017) found the combination of socialization, cultural
capital, and skin color privilege to be informative in terms of how some mixed‐race women utilize certain racial inci-
dents in mainstream media (such as the Black Lives Matter movement) as a vetting tool to determine if their partners
hold political positions around race and gender that are desirable. The burden of accounting for the racial politics of a
given partner—particularly a White partner—was found to fall disproportionately on darker skinned and mixed‐Black
mixed‐race women (pp. 10–12). Sims (2016) has argued that the consistent inconsistent racial perception that many
multiracial people experience impacts relationships due to how external appraisals are internalized by mixed‐race peo-
ple. The importance of appearance is further bolstered by the findings of Feliciano (2016), who notes how those who
are perceived as racially ambiguous are placed in a Hispanic/Latino category, with darker skin tones categorized as
Black. Though researchers know a great deal about how multiracial people are racialized, there are still many out-
standing questions regarding the treatment of mixed‐race people in their dating and married lives and how their expe-
riences operate within a larger racialized system where even so‐called progressive interracial relationships are not
exempt from problematic color‐blind logic, sexual racism, and fetishizing.
BUGGS 9 of 13

6 | C O N CL U S I O N

As more research focuses on dating as part of the family formation process, sociologists will continue to refine their
analyses of how race, gender, sexuality, and class work together to inhibit or facilitate people's opportunities to build
relationships, families, and communities. Paying greater attention to where multiracial adults fit in to these dating and
marriage markets will aid in further parsing out how race and ethnicity contribute to the messiness of everyday life,
particularly with regard to who is constructed as desirable, how issues like sexual racism and intimacy intersect, and
what consequences various modes of racial socialization and racial perception may have on interpersonal dynamics.
This is especially the case when considering that significant amounts of the research on mixed‐race identity have
focused on women, likely due to their greater tendency to identify as mixed‐race and to perceive the “exotic” label
as being applicable to them (Davenport, 2016). Though a male mixed‐race individual whose racial identities are asso-
ciated with so‐called undesirable stereotypes (being half‐Asian for instance, which is a feminized sexuality, or half‐
Latino, which is perceived as misogynistic) would potentially run into difficulty finding success in dating, research
exploring the reasons why people may or may not reject someone remains limited. Future avenues for research
may explore Bonam and Shih's (2009) preliminary findings regarding how multiracial people define interracial relation-
ships for themselves, providing additional evidence for how racial boundaries are drawn. Further, more research is
needed that explores the role of phenotype as it impacts multiracial desirability and whether this differs in any signif-
icant way from lighter skinned people of color. This work should also include multiracial people who are not part‐
White and who fall outside of stereotypical notions of multiraciality. Finally, more research will focus on understudied
segments of the multiracial population: men and members of the LGBTQ community.

ORCID
Shantel Gabrieal Buggs http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3548-102X

RE FE R ENC ES
Acosta, K. L. (2013). Amigas y amantes: Sexually nonconforming Latinas negotiate family. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Press.
Ahmed, S. (1997). “It's a sun‐tan, isn't it?”: Auto‐biography as an identificatory practice. In H. S. Mirza (Ed.), Black British fem-
inism: A reader (pp. 155–167). London: Routledge.
Alba, R., & Nee, V. (1997). Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of immigration. The International Migration Review,
31(4), 826–874.
Alexander, M. J. (2006). Pedagogies of crossing: Meditations on feminism, sexual politics, memory and the sacred. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
Ali, S. (2003). Mixed‐race, post‐race: Gender, new ethnicities and cultural practices. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Battle, J., & Barnes, S. L. (Eds) (2009). Black sexualities: Probing powers, passions, practices and policies. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
Bedi, S. (2015). Sexual racism: Intimacy as a matter of justice. The Journal of Politics, 77(4), 998–1011.
Beeman, A. K. (2007). Emotional segregation: A content analysis of institutional racism in US films, 1980–2001. Ethnic and
Racial Studies, 30(5), 687–712.
Beltrán, M., & Fojas, C. (Eds) (2008). Mixed race Hollywood. New York: New York University Press.
Bhattacharyya, G. (1998). Tales of dark‐skinned women: Race, gender and global culture. London: University College London
Press.
Blackwell, D. L., & Lichter, D. T. (2004). Homogamy among dating, cohabitating, and married couples. The Sociological Quarterly,
45(4), 719–737.
Blau, P. M., Beeker, C., & Fitzpatrick, K. M. (1984). Intersecting social affiliations and intermarriage. Social Forces, 62(3),
585–606.
Bonam, C., & Shih, M. (2009). Exploring mixed‐race individuals' comfort with intimate relationships. Journal of Social Issues,
65(1), 87–103.
10 of 13 BUGGS

Bonilla‐Silva, E. (2013). Racism without racists: Color‐blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in the United States
(4th ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman &Littlefield Publishers.
Brunsma, D. L. (2005). Interracial families and the racial identification of mixed‐race children: Evidence from the Early Child-
hood Longitudinal Study. Social Forces, 84(2), 1131–1157.
Buggs, S. G. (2017). Dating in the time of #BlackLivesMatter: Exploring mixed‐race women's discourses of race and racism.
Sociology of Race and Ethnicity. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649217702658
Callander, D., Newman, C. E., & Holt, M. (2015). Is sexual racism really racism? Distinguishing attitudes toward sexual racism
and generic racism among gay and bisexual men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1991–2000.
Caluya, G. (2008). “The rice steamer”: Race, desire and affect in Sydney's scene. Australian Geographer, 39(3), 283–292.
Charles, C. Z. (2006). Won't you be my neighbor: Race, class, and residence in Los Angeles. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Childs, E. C. (2005). Navigating interracial borders: Black–white couples and their social worlds. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
Childs, E. C. (2009). Fade to black and white: Interracial images in media and popular culture. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers.
Chow‐White, P. A. (2006). Race, gender and sex on the net: Semantic networks of selling and storytelling sex tourism. Media
Culture Society, 28(6), 883–905.
Chun, E. W., & Lo, A. (2016). Language and racialization. In N. Bonvillain (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of linguistic anthropology.
New York: Routledge.
Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Collins, P. H. (2005). Black sexual politics: African Americans, gender and the new racism. New York: Routledge.
Courtney, S. (2005). Hollywood fantasies of miscegenation: Spectacular narratives of gender and race, 1903–1967. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Curington, C. V., Lin, K., & Lundquist, J. H. (2015). Positioning multiraciality in cyberspace: Treatment of multiracial daters in
an online dating website. American Sociological Review, 80(4), 764–788.
DaCosta, K. M. (2007). Making mixed‐race people: State, family, and market in the redrawing of the color line. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Dalmage, H. M. (2000). Tripping on the color line: Black–white multiracial families in a racially divided world. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
Davenport, L. D. (2016). The role of gender, class, and religion in biracial Americans' racial labeling decisions. American
Sociological Review, 81(1), 57–84.
Davis, A. Y. (1983). Women, race & class. New York: Vintage Books.
Dworkin, S. H. (2002). Biracial, bicultural, bisexual: Bisexuality and multiple identities. Journal of Bisexuality, 2(4), 93–107.
Feliciano, C. (2016). Shades of race: How phenotype and observer characteristics shape racial classification. American Behav-
ioral Scientist, 60(4), 390–419.
Feliciano, C. and J. M. Kizer. (2016). Ascribed race and racial exclusion among self‐identified multiracial daters. Presentation at
the American Sociological Association's Annual Meeting in Seattle, WA.
Feliciano, C., Lee, R., & Robnett, B. (2011). Racial boundaries among Hispanics: Evidence from internet daters' racial prefer-
ences. Social Problems, 58(2), 189–212.
Feliciano, C., Robnett, B., & Komaie, G. (2009). Gendered racial exclusion among white internet daters. Social Science Research,
38(1), 39–54.
Frankenberg, R. (1993). White women, race matters: The social construction of whiteness. Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota Press.
Fujino, D. C. (1997). The rates, patterns and reasons for forming heterosexual interracial dating relationships among Asian
Americans. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14(6), 809–828.
Funderburg, L. (1995). Black, white, other: Biracial Americans talk about race and identity. New York: Harper Perennial.
Gordon, M. M. (1964). Assimilation in American life. New York: Oxford University Press.
Guzzo, K. B. (2006). How do marriage market conditions affect entrance into cohabitation vs. marriage? Social Science
Research, 35, 332–355.
Haritaworn, J. (2009). “Caucasian and Thai make a good mix”: Gender, ambivalence and the “mixed‐race” body. European
Journal of Cultural Studies, 12(1), 59–78.
hooks, b. (1992). Black looks: Race and representation. Brooklyn, NY: South End Press.
BUGGS 11 of 13

Hunter, M. L. (2005). Race, gender, and the politics of skin tone. New York: Routledge.
Jones, N. A. and J. Bullock. (2012). Two or more races population: 2010. 2010 Census Briefs, U.S. Census Bureau. https://
www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br‐13.pdf
Joyner, K., & Kao, G. (2005). Interracial relationships and the transition to adulthood. American Sociological Review, 70(4),
563–581.
Kempadoo, K. (Ed) (1999). Sun, sex and gold: Tourism and sex work in the Caribbean. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers.
Lewis, K. (2013). The limits of racial prejudice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 1814–1819.
Lichter, D. T., Brown, J. B., Qian, Z., & Carmalt, J. H. (2007). Marital assimilation among Hispanics: Evidence of declining cultural
and economic incorporation? Social Science Quarterly, 88(3), 745–765.
Lin, K., & Lundquist, J. H. (2013). Mate selection in cyberspace: The intersection of race, gender, and education. American
Journal of Sociology, 119(1), 183–215.
Lofquist, D., Lugaila, T., O'Connell, M., & Feliz, S. (2012). Households and families: 2010. In 2010 Census Briefs. U.S.: Census
Bureau. https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br‐14.pdf
Lundberg, S., & Pollack, R. A. (1993). Marriage market equilibrium and bargaining in marriage. Journal of Political Economy,
101, 1–21.
Lundberg, S., & Pollack, R. A. (2014). Cohabitation and the uneven retreat from marriage in the United States, 1950–2010. In
L. P. Boustan, C. Frydman, & R. A. Margo (Eds.), Human capital in history: The American record (pp. 241–272). Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Lundquist, J. H., & Lin, K. (2015). Is love (color) blind? The economy of race among white gay and straight daters. Social Forces,
93(4), 1423–1449.
McClintock, A. (1995). Imperial leather: Race, gender, and sexuality in the colonial contest. London: Routledge.
McClintock, E. A. (2010). When does race matter? Race, sex, and dating at an elite university. Journal of Marriage and Family,
72(1), 45–72.
McGrath, A. R., Tsunokai, G. T., Schultz, M., Kavanagh, J., & Tarrence, J. A. (2016). Differing shades of color: Online dating
preferences of biracial individuals. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 39(11), 1920–1942.
Miyawaki, M. H. (2016). Part‐Latinos and racial reporting in the census: An issue of question format? Sociology of Race and
Ethnicity, 2(3), 289–306.
Moore, M. (2011). Invisible families: Gay identities, relationships, and motherhood among black women. Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press.
Nagel, J. (2003). Race, ethnicity, and sexuality: Intimate intersections, forbidden frontiers. London: Oxford University Press.
Nakamura, L. (2001). Head hunting in cyberspace. The Women's Review of Books, 18(5), 10–11.
Nakamura, L. (2008). Cyberrace. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 123(5), 1673–1682.
Nemoto, K. (2009). Racing romance: Love, power and desire among Asian American/white couples. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
Paul, J. P., Ayala, G., & Choi, K. (2010). Internet sex ads for MSM and partner selection criteria: The potency of race/ethnicity
online. Journal of Sex Research, 47(6), 528–538.
Pew Research Center. (2015). Multiracial in America: Proud, diverse and growing in numbers. Washington, D.C.: June.
Phua, V. C., & Kaufman, G. (2003). The crossroads of race and sexuality: Date selection among men in internet “personal” ads.
Journal of Family Issues, 24(8), 981–994.
Qian, Z. (1997). Breaking the racial barriers: Variations in interracial marriage between 1980 and 1990. Demography, 34(2),
263–276.
Qian, Z., & Lichter, D. (2001). Measuring marital assimilation: Intermarriage among natives and immigrants. Social Science
Research, 30, 289–312.
Qian, Z., & Lichter, D. (2007). Social boundaries and marital assimilation: Interpreting trends in racial and ethnic intermarriage.
American Sociological Review, 72, 68–94.
Qian, Z., & Lichter, D. (2011). Changing patterns of interracial marriage in a mixed‐race society. Journal of Marriage and Family,
73, 1065–1084.
Rafalow, M. H., Feliciano, C., & Robnett, B. (2017). Racialized femininity and masculinity in the preferences of online same‐sex
daters. Social Currents.. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329496516686621
Reece, R. L. (2016). What are you mixed with?: An analysis of perceived attractiveness, skin tone, and mixed raciality. The
Review of Black Political Economy, 43, 139–147.
12 of 13 BUGGS

Robinson, B. A. (2015). “Personal preference” as the new racism: Gay desire and racial cleansing in cyberspace. Sociology of
Race and Ethnicity, 1(2), 317–330.
Robinson, R. K. (2008). Structural dimensions of romantic preferences. Fordham Law Review, 76, 2787–2819.
Robnett, B., & Feliciano, C. (2011). Patterns of racial‐ethnic exclusion by internet daters. Social Forces, 89(3), 807–828.
Rockquemore, K. A., & Arend, P. (2002). Opting for white: Choice, fluidity and racial identity construction in post civil‐rights
America. Race and Society, 5(1), 49–64.
Rockquemore, K. A., Laszloffy, T., & Noveske, J. (2006). It all starts at home: Racial socialization in multiracial families. In D. L.
Brunsma (Ed.), Mixed messages: Mixed‐race identities in the “color‐blind” era (pp. 203–216). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner
Publishers.
Rondilla, J. L., & Spickard, P. (2007). Is lighter better? Skin‐tone discrimination among Asian Americans. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers.
Root, M. P. P. (2001). Love's revolution: Interracial marriage. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Rosenfeld, M. J., & Kim, B. (2005). The independence of young adults and the rise of interracial and same‐sex unions. American
Sociological Review, 70(4), 541–562.
Rudder, C. (2014). Dataclysm: Who we are (when we think no one's looking). New York: Crown Publishers.
Saperstein, A., & Penner, A. M. (2012). Racial fluidity and inequality in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 118(3),
676–727.
Sharpley‐Whiting, T. D. (2007). Pimps up, ho's down: Hip hop's hold on young black women. New York: New York University
Press.
Sims, J. P. (2012). Beautiful stereotypes: The relationships between physical attractiveness and mixed race identity. Identities:
Global Studies in Culture and Power, 19(1), 61–80.
Sims, J. P. (2016). Reevaluation of the influence of appearance and reflected appraisals for mixed‐race identity: The role of
consistent inconsistent racial perception. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 2(4), 569–583.
Song, M. (2003). Choosing ethnic identity. Bristol, UK: Polity Press.
Spell, S. A. (2017). Not just black and white: How race/ethnicity and gender intersect in hookup culture. Sociology of Race and
Ethnicity, 3(2), 172–187.
Squires, C. R. (2014). The post‐racial mystique: Media & race in the twenty‐first century. New York: New York University Press.
Steinbugler, A. (2012). Beyond loving: Intimate racework in lesbian, gay and straight interracial relationships. London: Oxford
University Press.
Stember, C. H. (1976). Sexual racism: The emotional barrier to an integrated society. New York: Elsevier.
Storrs, D. (2006). Culture and identity in mixed‐race women's lives. In D. L. Brunsma (Ed.), Mixed messages: Mixed‐race iden-
tities in the “color‐blind” era (pp. 327–347). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Sung, B. L. (1990). Chinese American intermarriage. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 21(3), 337–352.
Tsunokai, G. T. A., McGrath, R., & Kavanagh, J. K. (2014). Online dating preferences of Asian Americans. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 31(6), 796–814.
Tucker, M. B., & Mitchell‐Kernan, C. (1990). New trends in Black American interracial marriage: The social structural context.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 52, 209–218.
Twine, F. W. (2010). A white side of black Britain: Interracial intimacy and racial literacy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). 2010 census shows interracial and interethnic married couples grew by 28 percent over decade.
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb12‐68.html
Umberson, D., & Moretz, J. K. (2010). Social relationships and health: A flashpoint for health policy. Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, 51(1), S54–S66.
Waring, C. D. L. (2013). Beyond “code‐switching”: The racial capital of black/white biracial Americans. Doctoral dissertation: Uni-
versity of Connecticut.
Waring, C. D. L. (2016). “It's like we have an ‘in’ already”: The racial capital of black/white biracial Americans. Du Bois Review:
Social Science Research on Race.. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X16000357
Wilkins, A. C. (2009). Stigma and status: Interracial intimacy and intersectional identities among black college men. Gender and
Society, 26(2), 165–189.
Wilson, P. A., Valera, P., Ventuneac, A., Balan, I., Rowe, M., & Carballo‐Dieguez, A. (2009). Race‐based sexual stereotyping and
sexual partnering among men who use the internet to identify other men for bareback sex. Journal of Sex Research, 46(5),
399–413.
BUGGS 13 of 13

Wong, K. (2014). Unpopular opinion: 6 reasons why your utopic vision for a mixed‐race future is my nightmare. XOJane.
http://www.xojane.com/issues/your‐mixed‐race‐utopia‐is‐my‐nightmare
Wu, K., Chen, C., & Greenberger, E. (2015). The sweetness of forbidden fruit: Interracial daters are more attractive than
intraracial daters. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32(5), 650–666.
Yancey, G. (2002). Who interracially dates: An examination of the characteristics of those who have interracially dated. Journal
of Comparative Family Studies, 33(2), 179–190.
Yancey, G., & Yancey, S. (1997). Black–White differences in the use of personal advertisements for individuals seeking
interracial relationships. Journal of Black Studies, 27(5), 650–667.
Yancey, G., & Yancey, S. (1998). Interracial dating: Evidence from the personal advertisements. Journal of Family Issues, 19(3),
334–348.
Zack, N. (1994). Race and mixed race. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Zhou, M., & Lee, J. (2007). Becoming ethnic or becoming American?: Reflecting on the divergent pathways to social mobility
and assimilation among the new second generation. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 4(1), 189–205.

Shantel Gabrieal Buggs is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at Florida State University. She
received her PhD in Sociology from The University of Texas at Austin. Her research interests include race and eth-
nicity, gender, sexuality, family, and romantic intimate relationships and identities, with a focus on multiracial/
mixed‐race life course processes and the representation of race, gender, and sexuality in popular culture.

How to cite this article: Buggs SG. Does (mixed‐)race matter? The role of race in interracial sex, dating, and
marriage. Sociology Compass. 2017;e12531. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12531