I'm still struck by a facet of the reaction from the results of the Hot 100 poll. The AE staff was once again disappointed that there were so few men of color in the 100. Not that I'm saying that's not a legitimate complaint. However, a number of readers pointed out that the staff hadn't counted several men on the list who were racially mixed. It's a sensitive topic, but I thought it was a good thing those readers put that out there. My opinion was that if the men in question identify as persons of color or as being of mixed race, they should be counted. It seemed to me that a broader definition would be appropriate.
I went back, and I'm going to quote: "As is becoming an annual ritual, there is some unpleasant news. Only seven guys on the Hot 100 are men of color –up from six last year. We think this speaks to the relative lack of racial minorities among the ranks of TV and movie celebrities (where most Hot 100 picks come from). But given that only 70% of the U.S. is white, it’s also worth asking: do some gay and bisexual men need to broaden their definition of what it means to be hot?" (http://www.afterelton.com/2011-hot-100-results)
That's what those readers were responding to. They counted eleven men of color rather than seven.