At the risk of sounding like some modern age puritan I also don't think interracial should be a category. I feel like it legitimizes a view of human beings that is false. There is only one race, and the correct term or terms to describe regional adaptions is just that: regional adaptations. The amount of melanine, the size of the nasal cavity, whether there is an epicanthic fold under the eye, none of these factors are or should be relevant in the personality of an individual or character, let alone their sexual attractiveness. Unless there is a fetish for the particular blend of cultures that has arisen from people with particular regional adaptations being discriminated against, like the black community, I don't see the point. Incest, Gay/Bi, MILF, Trans, all these directly affect the sexual dynamic that is taking place regardless of what the individuals look like. They are universal. With interracial the dynamic is determined by taking for granted that the reader has a certain set of preconceptions about what it might mean to be a person with so and so regional adaptations. I think it means you potentially force the focus on something that shouldn't have real impact. When I see someone whose ancestry is ostensibly from a different corner of the world than mine, I don't think 'that's potentially a sexual experience of note' on that basis, whereas when I might think that when I see someone who is ostensibly alternative in any way imaginable (goth, steampunk, punk, rock, fantasy, sci-fi, etc.), just because of the wider implications on their personality of belonging to some alternative thing. There's nothing I can assume about the type of sexual shenanigans I might conceivably have with a person based on arbitrary characteristics that didn't evovle around sex.
Rant over. Sorry it became a rant. Cheers.