Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 9

Historical causes

To what extent does the prevalence of prostitution and the low status of women in some Asian countries, especially during the colonial era and mid 20th century, contribute to stereotypes? Case in point: Thailand. Prostitution is very common and many if not most Thai men visit them. This created a huge population of prostitutes that were exploited by Western sex tourists and military stationed in or near Thailand (eg. US military stationed during Vietnam war). These men then brought back stories of prostitutes willing to do all sorts of degrading things for money. A similar phenomenon occured during Shanghai in the 1930s. In strong contrast, US miliary in Iraq and Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have little access to Arab prostitutes. Even if there are prostitutes in Arab countries, it is most certainly kept discreet, and foreigners would be forbidden from using them. Thus, Arab women are less "eroticized" than Asian women. My point is that the stereotype of "Asian women" seems to come from a handful of historical situations like Thailand during the Vietnam war, Shanghai during pre-war colonial era, and so forth. This could be comparable to the US military experience with French women during WWII, which resulted in France being synonymous with sensuality. Asian nations are , broadly speaking, very conservative, so I think that these historical anomalies resulted in a grossly distorted image. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soda80 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC).

To what extent does prostitution reinforce negative stereotypes? Quite a bit, actually. However, the stereotypes of East Asians were created before the 19th century, before any widespread contact with prostitution. If one were to study colonial era popular literature, historically speaking, the French associated prostitution and licentious sex with Arab women in the 18th century, the British associated them with South Asian women in the 19th century, and the Americans associated them with East Asian women in the early 20th century, and then with Southeast Asian women in the 2nd half of the 20th century. (Of course, this vastly oversimplifies many, many details, but that is the general idea.)

So, in essence, while it's true that prostitution in the 20th century did heavily reinforce the sexual stereotypes, I would further add that the stereotypes themselves are centuries-old, and are deeply rooted in colonialism itself. --Wzhao553 00:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point. So it would seem that prostitution in the 20th century influenced the dynamic but you claim it is older. Can you give some examples or specifics. Kubrik's Full Metal Jacket's portrayal of a Vietnamese prostitute saying "me love you long time" etc. is the perfect example of what I am talking about. Stories like this were brought back by vets. That movie itself spread this ugly image, which was then in turn spread by Two Live Crew with their song "me so horny". This image was latched onto by the pornography industry who created a whole subindustry of "love you long time" and "sucky sucky" porn. It seems like a domino effect from the vet's experience of paying 5 dollars for sex with desparate, poor Vietnamese women to the internet age with sickening Asian fetish porn. While you are correct that Arab women were exoticized by the French, the 20th century experience with Arab nations has offered no opportunity for similar exoticism. Arab prostitutes are at least not available to US marines, and Arab porn is either non existent or not exported. Compare this with Japan which has a HUGE porn industry, number 5 in the world, including some disturbing aspects like rape and very young girls. Saudi Arabia doesn't do this. This is why you never see Arab porn floating around, and no "fan boys" types ogling lewd Arab comics. Someone who knows Japan only through these cartoons would have a seriously warped view of an actually very conservative nation. That's the most interesting part -- the gap between these stereotypes and the reality that Asian societies are generally more conservative and Western societies much more promiscuous and licentious. Today, the dominant factor in distorted stereotypes would definitely have to be the media and internet. If people actually travelled and met real people, people would see each other perhaps a little bit more as equally human.Soda80 13:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you've done a good job at summarizing the spread of stereotypes. We can find the necessary academic references in due time, but it looks correct and better than what is currently in place in the article. My point was that, insofar as this section of the talk page is about the "historical origins", many historians would find parallels between 20th century American representation of East Asian women and 18th century French representation of the Orient. For example, when French Orientalists (who were usually quite wealthy) traveled throughout the Muslim world, they were able to gain entrance into the palaces of powerful rulers, from which they brought back stories of harems as symbols of licentious sex. These images were then reproduced in literature and art (e.g., Image:HaremPool.jpg and Image:IngresBainTurc.jpg), which Europeans mistakenly viewed as representative of all women in the Muslim world.

So in this view, the misrepresentation of Vietnamese women based on the narrow experiences of American GI's with Vietnamese prostitutes has direct parallels with the narrow experiences of French and British Orientalists and Arab, Turkish, Persian, etc., women in the 18th and 19th centuries. --Wzhao553 23:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think one important point here is realise that a lot of this is more to do with the American point of view. In the US, probably because of it's abnormally large religious population sex is viewed as a bad thing. Hence the anomally that extreme violence in US TV and Film is far more exceptable than the mildest sex. Outside the US, if you look at Europe, Britain, Canada, Australia, Japan or Thailand sex is not such a big deal and is generally seen as a more positive, natural and important part of life. Therefore perhaps some of the eroticism assigned to Asian women and French women is due to the clash between American prudishness and the culture of these other countries where people have a more balanced view of sex. I don't think that most Thai women get a worse deal than American women because of this, and I have no doubt that they are far better off than women living in Arab countries. Women living in very religious countries like parts of the US and the Muslim world often end up repressed and left subordinate to men, this often results in various forms of abuse.--Hontogaichiban 03:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for Thai culture, but I do know that the concepts behind things like "Asian fetish" and "white-worshipping", though obviously not the English terms themselves, have been extensively discussed in Japanese media and academia. (See [1].) I don't know much about comparative media representation in the US and UK, but what I have read leads me to believe that they have about the same level of sexual content. In any event, phrases like "more balanced view of sex" are by definition POV, although I have read of authors who strongly advocate that position and defend practices such as sex tourism in Thailand as natural and mutually beneficial. (See [2].) --Wzhao553 03:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Korean and Chinese American phenomenon

An interesting and unexamined facet of the debate is why the issue predominates in Chinese and Korean-American communities especially. Korea is 99% ethnic Korean. China is diverse but one culture clearly dominates. The lack of multicultural give and take, "race-mixing" etc. might produce exclusivist attitudes not seen in other Asian populations. I've even heard of mixed foreign couples on vacation in korea being harassed in public.

“Korea is the epitome of a nationalistic nation. Or so it would seem. Koreans will violently defend their nation against any perceived external slight or insult, against any percieved encroachment on tradition or territory." (from a Univeristy of Chicago study.) Coincidence?

Maybe some of these attitudes have crossed over into the CA and KA cultures and exacerbated by minority status. The point is that the majority and most vocal critics of Asian fetish seem to be CA and KA, not other Asian groups. Why is that? And can anyone find statistics about opinion / opposition to interracial dating broken down by specific ethnicity?

Steve Sailor Exposed

I removed Godfrey Daniel's new addition regarding muscle mass. He references Steve Sailor as a source, who is a well known white supremacist and racist:

http://www.geocities.com/sailerfraud/ir.html

A little bit about Steve Sailor:

Once of his most (in)famous works for the National Review which boosted his publicity was the 1997 article on interracial marriages, "Is Love Colorblind". In the article, he believes Asian males and Black females are so inherently inferior and unattractive by birthright, they will be at a significant disadvantage in finding relationships and will be breeded out of society. This overexaggerated article was known to create gender divides among the races. Knowing the stir initially created by this article, he wrote another article in 2003 where he flat out lied about the 2000 Census stats on interracial marriages to repeat the havoc initially created so he can profit.

In the late 1990s, Sailer made two more accomplishments in the name of scientific racism. First, he created the Human Biodiversity Group, a right-wing eugenics thinktank where people with the mindsets of Steve Sailer can discuss and promote academic racism, homophobia, xenophobia, and eugenics policies. Among the worst members of the HBD group, whom Sailer Primarily bases his scientific research upon, are Charles Murray, Vincent Sarich, Arthur Jensen, John Derbyshire, Chris Brand, Philippe Rushton, Jim Woodhill, Steve Pinker, Jon Entine, and Peter Brimelow.

Second, Steve Sailer left the National Review to join the VDare internet publication. VDare is notorious for it's pro-fascist, anti-immigration stance and racist views to rid America of anyone who is not white. VDare's president, Peter Brimelow, declared the 1965 Immigration Act as "Hitler's revenge". As a note, VDare labels itself as a non-profit organization to avoid paying taxes and to give tax breaks to its contributors, but it profits anyway to employ exclusively right-wing biased journalists and racists so they can make a living.

Sailer's racist views and true colors became more prevalent after writing articles for VDare. Whether declaring that Latinos are no-good trash and Latino immigration must end, or that Blacks are genetically inferior in mental capability and do not deserve equal educational and economic opportunities, or that Asians are genetically inferior in physique and do not deserve opportunities in professional sports, Sailer has used VDare as his flagship to carry out his racist agenda of white supremacy and to trash on anyone who is not white like him. OneViewHere 17:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Aside from being another "just so story," it really is simply irrelevnt. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hang on a second are your sure Steven Pinker is in this group? I'm not a huge fan, but I don't think he is a racist? --Hontogaichiban 14:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment supported by personal website

It seems that a user by the name of Natsume Soseki is attempting to insert statements sourced by a personal website on Tripod, possibly his own. Interestingly, he attempts to cite anti-racist articles to support his contention that Asian American anti-racism is in fact racist, without producing any credible sources saying why.

Other Asian Americans have labeled these arguments, and the term "Asian fetish" as used by activists, to be thinly-disguised calls for racial separatism. [3] Indeed, some writings by Asian American activists lend credence to this view. [4][5][6][7]

Since this is against Wikipedia policy, namely WP:V, I have removed this opinion. In general, adding such opinions is encouraged as it promotes NPOV, so long as the opinions are published in credible sources, but sourcing such opinions with personal websites is original research. --Wzhao553 19:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

My position is and has been that the ModelMinority website, itself an activist site, is not a reliable source for this article, except when citing editorial opinion and viewpoints of particular authors. Thusly, if the editor were to say "Joe Schmo says blah, blah, blah in an article on "woof" ...", that could be sourced there, otherwise not. I think this applies to opinions from across the spectrum. As an aside, I am surprised to see Wzhao553 deleting opinions sourced from MM, as he has used it often to source his own positions. -- Gnetwerker 19:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

So much in the article is opinion, and supported by opinion pieces. A sentence or two stating another opinion, and supported by opinion piece surely is not out of place, especially when Omura's opinion seems to be supported by the activist literature itself, which is linked to elsewhere in the article. I put Omura's name in the disputed sentence for added legitimacy. Deleting this sentence while leaving in an entire article supported mainly by opinion pieces seems to me to be vandalism, blanking out sections to push one POV. Natsume Soseki 20:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Natsume, you are taking random posts from various users from MM.com and implying that they are representative of the "activist literature" when in fact they are not. You might as well cherry-pick certain extremist statements by searching through thousands of post on craigslist's political forums and claim that they are representative of US politics. I am familiar with the MM.com site and you are grossly misrepresenting their views and cherrypicking statements. "Racial separatism" is beyond the scope of this article and should be relegated to a different article. I'm also a bit offended that you chose to add this section without even consulting any of the regular contributors in this discussion forum. The fact that you chose to do this with no discussion makes me suspect you are a troll. OneViewHere 17:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

When I came across this article, about a month ago, its blatantly POV nature was obvious to me. To balance the POV overwhelmingly pushed in the article, I put in one sentence indicating another POV on this subject exists. This sentence was sourced by an opinion article that was linked to in this article previously, by another user. It was there before I added my one sentence.

My sentence has been in the article without complaint for a month. Yesterday, Wzhao553, with no discussion, removed this sentence not because it is POV (the entire article is POV) but because it is not Wzhao553's POV. When he deleted this sentence, I added references to articles in MM to back up Omura's position. These were not randomly cherry-picked articles, but articles used in this article. Wzhao553 again deleted this sentence. I then put the sentence back in, adding direct quotes from the MM articles to bolster this view. Wzhao553 has again deleted all reference to Omura's opinion because it does not support Wzhao553's opinion.

For you to call my behavior troll-like, without reference to Wzhao553's actions -- blatantly pushing only one POV, and blatantly suppressing other POVs -- indicates not only a disregard for NPOV, but that only one POV is tolerated in this article. Obviously, I am not welcome here, and will leave you "editors" to push POV, as long as Wzhao553 OKs it, to your hearts' content. Natsume Soseki 20:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Gnetwerker, you are encouraged to reread your statement to find the error in its logic. There is a difference between an opinion taken from a MM.com article and an opinion about a MM.com article. We are dealing with the latter and not an opinion sourced from MM. But since it is apparent that you are more interested in having an edit war than reaching NPOV through credible secondary publications, we will leave it at that. However, I do strongly encourage Natsume Soseki to find credible references from reputable sources for his personal opinion in the interest of NPOV, since that should be the first and foremost goal of this article in any event. --Wzhao553 20:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I will admit up front that I have not read the articles listed as citations. I would prefer if you (Wzhao553) and Natsume Soseki would discuss the issue in a positive manner here before starting a revert war. I am not defending any particular position here, I just don't want a new editor snuffed so unceremoniously -- remember, WP:BITE is also a WP policy. -- Gnetwerker 22:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but a newcomer should also refrain from accusing a more experienced editor of vandalism as he has done. --Wzhao553 22:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was out of line, Natsume Soseki. Wzhao553 has put a lot of work in here, so please be respectful of him even if you disagree. -- Gnetwerker 22:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy

There appears to be some confusion about Wikipedia policy. Here's a paragraph from WP:V

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so.

So personal websites (such as those on Tripod) are unacceptable sources unless they are directly about the person in question. Hence, citing Omura's website in an article about Omura is acceptable, but citing it for other purposes is not. I hope that clears everything up. --Wzhao553 20:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that sentiment. However, it will mean taking out a good bit of what is currently in the article if we stop using non-reliable sources such as MM. Are you up for that? -- Gnetwerker 22:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, MM rarely publishes original content. The articles which User:Natsume Soseki referenced were originally written by Hoyt Sze for the Berkeley-run paper, The Daily Californian. In this case, you are discussing whether a college newspaper such as The Daily Californian is a reliable source, not whether MM is reliable. If you don't think the paper is reliable, then I am curious as to why you believe so, but saying that a reference is unreliable just because it was republished on MM is of course a bit silly. --Wzhao553 22:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether that paper is reliable or not, and I'm not taking a position on this issue at all -- just trying to keep the peace. -- Gnetwerker 22:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Fighting 44s

Here is something that should interest any editor who claims to want a NPOV in this article.

An activist group calling themselves the "Fighting 44s" is monitoring this article, has edited this article in the past, and has stated its intention to overhaul the article to their own POV.

A few posts from the site:

• Mon Oct 24, 2005: BboyDestructiveD recently alerted me to our presence on Wikipedia under "Asian Fetish"... HAHAHA, holy crap, we're NOTABLE!! We pulled a fast one on these motherf*ers, huh boys?

• Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005: ^^ As I recall, 3line was the one who wrote that paragraph and inserted in the definition of CCB. Don't expect it to last though. We really want to do a complete overhaul of that section.

http://www.thefighting44s.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?p=78426&sid=deb9d22227330eda8f8e4dd87eed78f1

and:

• Mon Apr 03, 2006 The definition of Model Minority on Wikipedia has recently been modified by whites and people who deny AA-racisim to something that is not in our favor... The same still goes for Asian Fetish, where the war is still raging :

• Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006: The Asian fetish war is crazy. Whitie got angry.

http://www.thefighting44s.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=6265

So, you have a group calling for a "complete overhaul" of the article to be written "in our favor." The same month that this call goes out, Wzhao553 begins editing the article to push the POV of this group, and to suppress other POVs. Now that he's "owned" this article for four months he claims to be an "experienced editor" and can delete, without comment, even one sentence that presents a POV he resents.

By tolerating Wzhao553's obvious POV vandalism, the other editors of this article are just as responsible for the black spot it puts on Wikipedia. The standard for Neutral Point of View at this article is: When people get disgusted and give up arguing with Wzhao553, NPOV has been achieved. Congratulations, all. I am disgusted and am leaving. Now pat yourselves on the backs that NPOV is here again, at least until someone else is foolhardy enough step in and write a sentence Wzhao553 does not like. Natsume Soseki 18:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, Natsume Soseki, you're new here, so I'll try not to WP:BITE. If you think this page is a complete whitewash (pardon the metaphor), then please go back and read the archives. I'm not saying the page is perfect -- far from it -- and I think there is quite a bit of POV, but you do need to adhere to Wikipedia policies when correcting it. But most importantly, your diatribes -- here, and on my personal talk page -- make it vastly less appealing to try to help you. In your rant on my talk page you threatened to leave Wikipedia. If you're going to stay, then please work cooperatively and within the policies of the place. Go read WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and other policies and then make your points.

Specifically to the fighting 44's -- their POV has been battled before and if they try to "take over" the page it will be battled again. Most of the things you quote are prior to the most recent edit war. -- Gnetwerker 20:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, Natsume Soseki, I found an actual sourced quote on asian-american separatism and put it in. Next time, do you own work. -- Gnetwerker 21:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a good call, Gnetwerker, I added two more criticisms of Frank Chin. --Wzhao553 23:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

wzhao553 at Fighting 44s

• Author wzhao553 Joined: 03 Aug 2005

http://www.thefighting44s.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=5767

Natsume Soseki 17:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Natsume, you're gonna have to come up with something more substantial than that. I've been watching this article for some time now and wzhao553's history of contributions to this article have been pretty substantial and even-handed. If you can come up with any edits of his that promote the "Fighting 44" POV I'd be glad to see it. As it is, there are extremists on every user forum. If Wzhao joined the craigslist politics forum, would you accuse him of having the same extremist POV that some KKK craigslist contributer had? Bottom line: This is not guilt by association. You VIOLATED wikipedia's terms of use and the longtime contributers to this article called you on it. You made signficant changes without consulting anyone else or talking about it beforehand in this dicussion forum. And then you sit back and get all offended when people call you on it?143.127.3.10 18:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Omura's opinion piece was ALREADY linked to at this page. I only put in a sentence refering to it. If it is considered an unreliable source, it should not have been part of the article in the first place.

Better sources were not asked for before deletion of the one-sentence reference to Omura's article. Better sources were not put in place instead of deletion. Wzhao553 simply deleted this balancing POV without discusion, and he did this multiple times, goading me to add more and more back-up, and now his friends claim those additions (again, references to articles already sourced here) were violations of policy. Only after a stink was raised has he reverted it.

If I'd been treated in a somewhat civil manner, I would have been happy to participate constructively.

Sorry, I promised I'd leave yesterday, but finding Wzhao553's name at this site is interesting news, I feel (though obviously his buddies here (and there? or are they one and the same?) are going to ignore it.) I am done looking at that site, and will leave you with what I find:

http://www.thefighting44s.com/discussion/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=778

wzhao553

Joined: 03 Aug 2005

Total posts: 207

http://www.thefighting44s.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?p=69446&highlight=#69446

• Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2005: wzhao553: ^^ Yes, 3line agreed to revise and post it to wiki. Dunno where he's been though. I suppose I might have to do it myself.

http://www.thefighting44s.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?p=75146&highlight=#75146

• Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005: wzhao553: Question for the members: Is anybody still actively keeping up with the Asian fetish entry? Let's get a status report sometime.

Natsume Soseki 19:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You are claiming that wzhao553 deleted your additions without discussion, yet you were the one who added content without discussing it with anyone first. I had never seen your name before as a contributer to this article in any form whatsoever before those changes. So naturally the first instinct that anyone has when seeing unannounced changes by an unknown person is to revert them, *especially* when those changes were made without notice, without discussion, and without credible sources to back it up.OneViewHere 19:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Wzhao fessed up to this months ago. It was out of line, but now it's over. Old news. Nothing to see here, move on. -- Gnetwerker 19:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

P.s. -- and in light of the almost-edit-war between Wzhao and me, the suggestion that we are "buddies" is amusing. I repeat: read the archives. -- Gnetwerker 19:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I recommend medication. --Wzhao553 23:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Origins

Some might remember Durova's suggestion a while back that the article contain a sourced section detailing the origins of the term, similar to the testosterone poisoning article (see Talk:Asian_fetish/Archive_7#Coined). After some thought, I decided to follow up on this suggestion. The section has now been added. It also seems like a good candidate to completely replace the unsourced and poorly sourced popular and academic terminology sections. I'm going to go ahead and delete those sections in a few days, absent serious objections. --Wzhao553 04:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the section. It is well-written (and researched), but is fundamentally original research. The reason for this may not be obvious, so I'll spell it out: however well-reasoned the argument is, Wzhao553 is going beyond the direct wording of the primary sources and stating deductions and opinions about them. The section represents (IMO) a valid appraisal of Asian American opinion on the matter, but there is far too much interstitial opinion linking the quotes and expanding on them to be anything other than original research. -- Gnetwerker 05:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, first of all, there is only one primary source, which is David Henry Hwang's afterward. All others are clearly secondary sources, i.e., published in academic venues or by academics. Secondly, if you were to read the sources themselves, you would see the difference between opinion about them and summaries of them. The writing is clearly the latter. However, you are nevertheless welcome to prove your assertions about original research rather than citing your own opinions. --Wzhao553 05:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend a huge amount of time on this -- but I will keep reverting it. It is 100% obvious OR. This para, for example:

The concept of sexual fetishism is central to psychoanalysis, of which Freud is considered a founder. For Freud, fetishism is a denial of sexual difference: the male fetishist, confronted with the female's lack of a penis, is traumatized by the fear of castration. To alleviate his castration anxiety, the man imagines a surrogate penis, which may be a plait of hair or an undergarment or a shoe, and projects it onto the female body.

Is utterly unsourced, absolutely 100% invention of WzHao. That its analysis might be arguable is not of issue -- Wikipedia is not a place for publishing bits of your undergraduate Asian Studies papers. -- Gnetwerker 05:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No prob, I'll provide the citation for that one. Give me a few minutes. Anyway, you're being incredibly ridiculous here. Try and be reasonable for once. --Wzhao553 05:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Two-thirds of the section by its own admission has nothing to do with sexuality or sexual fetish, which is what the article states at the top it is about. That material should be removed, as it is a pseudo-academic diatribe intended to drive an activist POV. You have amassed an apparently academic but ultimately hollow argument supporting your particular POV -- I don't think it is "ridiculous" to oppose it, as you have opposed similarly biased points of view here in the past. -- Gnetwerker 06:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I really have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here. Sorry. --Wzhao553 06:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in the entire section (except the Hwang quote from M. Butterfly) addresses sexual fetishism of Asian women. The rest is a pastiche relating to overall racism against Asians. It is in any case not relevant to this article, and also original research. -- Gnetwerker 06:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, for the benefit of everyone else, here's the section in its original form, before Gnetwerker rearranged the section quite oddly: [8]. Serious comments from knowledgeable editors are, of course, highly encouraged. --Wzhao553 06:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Calling in the Fighting 44's again, are we? -- Gnetwerker 06:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

First off, Gin Yong Pang's essay talks about Asian fetish (of women) about as directly as you can get. It deals with Chin and Chan's article, so that was cited to provide a reference point. Your allegation that nothing else deals with fetishism of Asian women is ridiculous. Second of all, I have yet to add David L. Eng's writings on Asian fetish (dealing with his psychoanalytic treatment of M. Butterfly) because I wanted to get feedback from everyone else before starting that section. Come on, be serious for once. Put up a real argument. --Wzhao553 06:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I'm also waiting to see the Wikipedia page on Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a place for publishing bits of your undergraduate Asian Studies papers. I couldn't find it by myself. Sorry. --Wzhao553 06:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It's here, (more precisely, here).. -- Gnetwerker 06:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm also curious as to which "similarly biased points of view here" I've opposed "in the past." Were you referring to the personal website I replaced in deference to two academic sources? Sorry if I can't recall any others. --Wzhao553 06:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I did a search for "Asian Studies" and couldn't find anything. You'll need to help me some more. --Wzhao553 06:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW, every single source cited in the Origins, with the exception of Gin Yong Pang's essay (which, we've covered, directly deals with Asian fetish at any rate) is cited by David L. Eng. In any event, I'm pretty sure it's not considered a synthesis of published material if you're only rephrasing one single author and what he also cites in turn. Come on, be serious. Really. --Wzhao553 06:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

AfD

I have attempted to recommend this article for deletion since it is inherently, and unresolvably POV, because of the on-going edit-warring, POV-pushing, and, most recently, Wzhao553's continuous insertion of a large block of original text, based on, and including quotes from articles for which I was deleted and accused of vandalism for merely quoting. Natsume Soseki 17:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I partially reversed Natsume's nomination due to a misunderstanding, but I have changed the banner to the correct format for second nominations. He can go ahead with a second nomination if he really believes that no good article can conceivably come from the current article. Gazpacho 17:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Gazpacho, could you please explain to Natsume that he needs to actually write something in the AfD page at some point in order to start the debate? --Wzhao553 21:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If the claim that "Postcolonialists and Neomarxists have argued that the alleged commodity fetishism of Asians arises in a similar manner." can't be cited, the whole section needs to go. Gazpacho 23:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. The Origins section should replace the unsourced Popular terminology and Academic terminology sections, as I mentioned earlier. --Wzhao553 23:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It's done. --Wzhao553 03:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Has there been a Request for Comment on this article before? I'm going to read through the history, but maybe somebody already knows. That might be helpful. I see there is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Asian fetish although I was thinking WP:RFC#Article content disputes - I'll add it to one or more.

There's relatively little in the article about the fetish itself and the people who may be said to have it (or market to it). It seems to be more about stereotypes of asians and speculation that those fuel the fetish. That may sometimes be true; go to an online porn retailer and look up some asian titles; Hustler's Asian Fever for example has "We love you long time" on the cover and the back cover synopsis plays to stereotypes, though this may not be indicative of what the video's content actually portrays. The article also seems to focus on a WM/AF fetish when there are members of other "races," sexes, and sexual orientations with the fetish; even some asians may have an asian fetish. Шизомби 18:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Original Research in this article

I have again moved Wzhao's original research to the social activism section. Wzhao again is trying to turn this page into an extension of http://www.modelminority.com or other activist websites by presenting an entirely unencyclopedic essay on one view of the origins of this term. The result is a thin gruel of pseudo-Freudian analysis, second-rate literary criticism, and social activism. I have not (as I probably should) removed the original research entirely from the article (yet), but it needs to stay in the section reserved for social activism. The literary criticism is not informative to the typical reader of Wikipedia. -- Gnetwerker 22:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Gnetwerker, several editors have remarked in the AfD2 that they do not understand why you believe that the page as it stands violates WP:NOR. For instance, there is no mention of Freud at all. If you think that it does, then you need to explain to everyone how it does before making major changes. Otherwise, your edits constitute vandalism and are an obvious violation of WP:OWN, WP:CSB and WP:NPOV#Anglo-American focus, not to mention m:MPOV. Regards, --Wzhao553 01:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

And several have mentioned that the article is full of POV original research. Name your poison. -- Gnetwerker 06:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Gnetwerker, I've indulged in your edits so far with a mixture of humor and good faith, but you have simply overextended my patience and tolerance. Your continued insistence that you are the only one here who can mediate and promote NPOV and that Asian American editors are somehow incapable of NPOV smacks of white male arrogance and reeks of m:MPOV. It is not only extremely condescending, but also is in violation of several Wikipedia policies. You do not own this article. You have added numerous incorrect and non-WP:V statements. And your edits are as far removed from NPOV as one can get.

So long as you continue to assert that Asian American editors are second-class citizens who are intellectually incapable of achieving NPOV on their own, then you also perpetuate not only white supremacy but also an ideological mindset that is neo-racist to the core. I would advise that you either revise your internal set of beliefs, or take the sincere advice presented in WP:OWN, which states:

If you find yourself warring with other contributors over deletions, reversions and so on, why not take some time off from the editing process? Taking yourself out of the equation can cool things off considerably. Take a fresh look a week or two later.

Regards, --Wzhao553 06:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It is you who is proposing a radical change to a stable page. The burden is on you to defend your massive edits. Perhaps you should take your own advice and take some time off. Especially since your POV material remains in the article in my reverts -- it simply does not dominate. Your only wish is to dominate the article with your POV, or you would be satified that your material remains in the article. -- Gnetwerker 06:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Gnetwerker, again, you are suffering from a severe case of m:MPOV. You do not own this article, and you are the only one who thinks that the article is more POV the way I have it than the way you have it. Your belief that Asian Americans are inherently POV is neo-racist and condescending. --Wzhao553 07:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't claim to own it. Indeed, I have written little of it. I do hold the line in preventing you from turning into your personal webpage. Calling me racist will have no effect on me. I have reverted anti-Asian POV as readily and quickly as your POV. It is not racist to consider a bias to be such, even if held by a minority. I regret that you labor under this misapprehension, and/or that you stoop to this low, low rehtorical device. -- Gnetwerker 07:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You were the one who stooped to accuse me that I am somehow intellectually incapable of NPOV. As I said, I have indulged in your edits with a mixture of humor and good faith, but it does stop here. If you think that Asian Americans are incapable of achieving NPOV without your help, then that does make you a neo-racist. Cheers, --Wzhao553 07:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Then let me say it clearly: I believe it entirely possible, likely, and certain that some Asian American editors can provide NPOV contributions here. You (Wzhao), have at various points in the past provided some. At other points your have tried (by you own admission) to insert Asian American acivist POV. In this case, your edits are extremely biased. You are trying to turn the page into an activist poster: Simple as that. -- Gnetwerker 07:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You've admitted many times to being biased, to deluding yourself, and to wanting to be the unofficial mediator of this page (violation of WP:OWN. I, on the other hand, want to replace two unsourced sections that I wrote myself with another sourced section that I wrote myself. This is completely within my right to do and is an improvement upon the page. There is no change in POV: simple, but your delusional ways won't let you see that. Too bad. --Wzhao553 07:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and the problem is that the new section is original research, and your comment belies your belief that you own the article. -- Gnetwerker 07:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You are the only person who believes that the section is original research. Every single other user, including me, has stated that the "Popular terminology" and the "Academic terminology" sections are original research. I wrote the Academic terminology section. I was the only contributor. I know that I was making it up as I went along. I know that it is original research for a fact. Therefore, I want to delete it. However, you refuse to let me do that. On the other hand, nobody except you thinks that the "Origins" section is original research. However, you continue acting as if everybody is behind you. This is ridiculous. --Wzhao553 07:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to delete "Academic terminology" I will not stand in your way. I will revert attempts to insert your "Origins" essay into the section of the page not identified as activism, as it is OR, and mostly not relevant to the page (some pieces by its own admission!). -- Gnetwerker 07:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, for those of us who still don't get it, let's do a little thought experiment. If we're supposed to delete original research, and if everybody thinks that the "Popular terminology" and the "Academic terminology" sections are original research, then we should delete the "Popular terminology" and "Academic terminology" sections. Then we're left with the "Origins" section as the first section after the lead article, which is exactly the way I had it originally. --Wzhao553 07:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The "Asian fetish" use in pornography can be sourced by any number of links to porn sites -- it is discretion that prevents their links -- he google search is (IMO) sufficient. The Academic section has been removed. -- Gnetwerker 07:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You still completely don't get it, do you? The usage in pornography is not the popular use. It is completely off the radar. Everyday usage of the term does not refer to pornography. Therefore, claiming that it does is original research. Hence, every single person, myself included, has stated that the popular terminology section is original research. Just because there exist some links out there somewhere that refer to it, does not mean that it is not original research. --Wzhao553 08:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh, do the search, as distasteful as it is, [9] is what most people see and think of as Asian fetish. Does it play on stereotypes? Yes, but whitewashing it with convoluted diatribes doesn't change it. And if "every single person" has a problem with the terminology section, then let's wait for them to remove it, not you. -- Gnetwerker 08:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I am an Asian American. I know more about this subject than you. I hear the term used every day. All of my friends hear the term every day. Never do we hear it in reference to pornography. That is not debatable. There exists a website with that URL. However, if you do a comprehensive search of the web as I have, you will find that 95% of the references do not refer to pornography. Therefore, stating that the pornographic usage is the popular usage is not only original research, but it is just plain incorrect. --Wzhao553 08:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This has been my problem with your edits all along. I have heard this term used on a regular basis for all of my life. You found out about it a few months ago. However, you assume that you know more about it than I do. --Wzhao553 08:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

What I observe is that the combination of your emotional investment in the subject and your undergraduate sensibility regarding what is and is not encyclopedic often makes your edits unsuitable for Wikpedia. I applaud your positions on "The Fighting 44's" website. -- Gnetwerker 08:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

First off, that was a personal attack. Second of all, you have invested just as much, if not more, emotion into this -- otherwise, we would not be having this discussion. Third, if you go look on the Fighting 44's website, you will see my point proved: nobody uses the term to denote pornography. Your continued belief that people use it primarily to denote pornography is not correct. --Wzhao553 08:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

The so-called "Asian fetish vandal", previously known as the "Virago vandal", may have moved on to Pedophile activism. Unfortunately, some of his off-kilter concepts are less obvious there so extra care will be required and extra help will be appreciated. -Will Beback 09:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Infinity0/Vandal report is still up if anybody wants to add details to it. -- infinity0 11:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Infinity0's take on the dispute

I've glanced over the talk page; seen the two versions. Here are my thoughts:

• The "use in pornography" is not "*the* definition" like it is made out to be in Gnetwerker's version. However, it is ommited in Wzhao's version. Asian fetish as a sexual fetish should be mentioned, but not primarily as pornography.
• Sections 1 and 2 should be named "As a sexual fetish" and "As used in social activism". I myself have not come across the latter usage but that's just my personal experience and means nothing.

-- infinity0 11:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Infinity0, we'll take a vote. I've asked ThreeAnswers, Sunray, Idont Havaname and OneViewHere to comment on whether they think that Asian fetish is primarily defined as pornography involving Asian women or whether they think that Asian fetish is primarily defined as men who are obsessed with Asian women. --Wzhao553 13:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm :( Vote's aren't helpful in wikipedia and are usually discouraged. I've stated what I think above, that asian fetish is primarily used as a sexual fetish. I don't understand your definitions, "pornography involving" and "men who are". A fetish is a fetish, not pornography or people. -- infinity0 14:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

A fetish is defined as: "A condition in which arousal and/or sexual gratification is attained through inanimate objects (shoes, pantyhose) or non-sexual body parts (feet, hair)."[10] Thus you can have "fetish pornography," but a fetish cannot reasonably be defined as "pornography." Note that to meet the definition, this article must focus on the objectivization of Asians. There is, thus, a great deal of extraneous chaff in the article that should be weeded out. Sunray 16:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Pornography

I'm not sure I understand the above discussions of whether pornography should be mentioned in the article or not. It seems to me the subject is being very narrowly defined by being about relationships between non-asian (primarily white) men and asian women. As I mentioned above, it's not limited to that.

Anyway, Excalibur.com (for example) has two different DVDs titled Yellow Fever, another titled New Yellow Fever, and a Yellow Fever 3-pack. There is also the Hustler series Asian Fever which is up to its 28th DVD (Hustler also has a website and a magazine titled "Asian Fever" but I don't know what issue it is up to), and Excalibur also has several other DVDs with "Asian Fever" in the title. There's also Fetish Fanatics 7 - Asian Girls who are Only 18. 876 DVDs altogether with "Asian" in the title.

An "asian fetish" has been mentioned several times in the pornography usenet discussion group rec.arts.movies.erotica going back to 1997. 4,240 results for just "asian."

Incidentally, the oldest usenet post mentioning "asian fetish" is from 1989 in the group soc.culture.asian.american [11] Other mentions that year were in soc.culture.japan and soc.culture.hongkong Шизомби 17:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the research, Шизомби, that was really helpful! We are not talking about whether pornography should be mentioned or not -- there's no question there needs to be some mention. We are, however, talking about how the term is primarily used. The argument here between me and Gnetwerker is simply over which usage came first and is most prominent -- the pornographic sense or the sense used by Asian American activists, authors and academics. I've tried to explain to Gnetwerker that it was Asian Americans who first coined the term and that the porn industry later reappropriated and marketed it, but he is convinced that it's been used in the porn industry since the 60's. He simply accuses me of being biased when I kindly explain to him otherwise. I mean, come on. This concept is controversial, but this argument is ludicrous. --Wzhao553 17:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I misunderstood the disagreement about porn then. I'm not sure where or when the term originated, but I think it could have originated among non-asian people (who either have the fetish or observed others with it) just as easily as with asian people, perhaps independently and simultaneously. That first usenet use (oldest archived, anyway) I mentioned above, while in an asian-american discussion group, was by a white guy; where he heard it (or if he simply recoined it) we do not know.

I would tend to doubt if pornographers appropriated the term from "Asian American activists, authors and academics" simply because I would doubt most pornographers would read that sort of material. I suppose it's possible, but I think it more likely they saw a market for porn featuring asians and used an obvious term for it (perhaps one mentioned in letters to their company). Шизомби 18:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, since we can't figure it out by our own research, I've suggested many times that we use secondary sources. See, e.g., in chronological order:

Similarly, heterosexual Asians have long been aware of "Yellow Fever" -- Caucasian men with a fetish for exotic Oriental women. I have often heard it said that "Oriental women make the best wives." (Hwang, M. Butterfly, 1986, publ. 1988)

In my study, many Korean American women encountered White men who, for whatever reasons, pursued and dated exclusively or predominantly Asian/Asian American women. These men were so common and identifiable that the women had special names for them; they were called "Rice Kings" or "Asiaphiles," or men with an "Asian fetish" or "Asian fixation." (Pang, "Intraethnic, Interracial, and Interethnic Marriages among Korean American Women", 1998)

When Caucasian or other non-Asian males are attracted to Asians with more intensity or frequency than is shown for other groups of women, Asian-Americans refer to this as "Yellow Fever" or "fetish"; nicknames for those who exhibit such behavior include "Fetish guys," or "Rice Kings," or "Rice Queens." (Prasso, The Asian Mystique, 2005)

All these sources explain that the term is specifically Asian American. I am simply basing my opinion that the term is used primarily by Asian Americans on these, and other, sources. --Wzhao553 18:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This entire argument is utterly beside the point. When and how the term originated is perhaps (and only perhaps) interesting historically, it is the description of its uses that is encyclopedic. The section on the term "Asian fetish" in pornography does not take the position that it is "original" in some sense, but that it is what it is easily observed to be: an obvious descriptor, following on from (e.g.) foot, breast, or leather fetishism, wihout regard to the incongruity between those more clinically-correct Freudian fetishs and this fetish toward stereotypes of Asian women. Further, the definition in that section is the dictionary definition, so I do not understand why WzHao is so anxious to replace it with his tendentious essay. -- Gnetwerker 19:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

Everybody, watch how many times you revert. Also, potential NPOV violations aren't vandalism by Wikipedia's definition. I haven't had a chance yet to explore all the archived talk pages or the history of the article to compare the versions yet to come to any conclusion about them. Шизомби 22:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help and mediation between Gnetwerker and me, Шизомби. I owe you one. Well, from my own POV, basically, in the very beginning (Talk:Asian fetish/Archive), the article focused on porn and did not include references to how Asian Americans actually use the term. There were a lot of complaints about this, so it migrated toward Asian American usage, and included references to Asian American literature. Now, the article seems to be moving back in the direction of porn and away from standard Asian American usage and referenced literature, which is somewhat frustrating, for obvious reasons, to an Asian American editor trying to accurately represent how the term is actually used in his own community. Again, this is my personal POV about a term that was coined and is used primarily in my own community, and is not (yet) the Wikipedia consensus. Thanks again. --Wzhao553 00:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the version before Wzhao begain inserting his essay had been structurally stable for over two months (see [12]), and without any discernible drift "in the direction of porn". It is WzHao's attempt to insert the Asian American social activist POV that is destabilizing he article. There is no problem with representing that POV, but what is being pushed is a "hostile takeover" of the article. Wzhao should cut down his "Origins" essay to a single paragraph (or two) that is directly relevant to this article, and move the rest somewhere else, as most of the references (by admission of the text) do not directly reference "Asian fetish". -- Gnetwerker 01:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I still haven't gone through all the history of the dispute, sorry. It seems like the article should be able to accomodate both porn and asian-american activism, and I would think there is probably some substantial overlap too (i.e. at least some of the porn containing some of the things that activists criticize). I have been trying to look for other references. Google scholar, news, and book searches, and Amazon "search inside this book." Some of the news search hits brought up different uses. One on tattoos used it in the sense of asiaphilia, while another referred to "asian fetish videos" which is ambiguous since it could refer to things like Asian Fever or to things like bukkake, cosplay, tentacle rape, etc. videos.

Some of the book hits may merit inclusion. How To Attract Asian Women: An Asian Woman Reveals It All by Ming Tan critiques broad accusations of asian fetishism and defends non-asian men who are attracted to asian women and vice versa, while acknowledging some problematic attitudes exist among some.

Incidentally, I had Comedy Central on last night and comedian Jim Gaffigan said during his stand-up "I wish I was Korean because then my interest in Asian women wouldn't be so creepy." Шизомби 20:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This was the former state of the article, the state that Wzhao is trying to subvert. -- Gnetwerker 22:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Шизомби. I'm glad you're working on this. I would consider Ming Tan's book to be Asian American literature. I forgot about that book, but it does contain a viewpoint which should be cited. I would consider Tan to be an activist as well. Based on the literature available, you can see that an important point to get across is that not all Asian American activists are critical of Asian fetish, and critics of Asian fetish aren't always activists. The article currently doesn't represent that, because it doesn't represent the entire range of Asian American opinion and literature. I'll try to compile some references and quotations that represent a wider range of opinions and post that. --Wzhao553 23:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Penis size again

I deleted this, another version of the perennial penis-size paragraph:

Aside from the issue of height, one of the most controversial topics is the issue of penis size, in which people of Asian descent are perceived as being smaller than Caucasians and men of African descent. The only reliable studies of penis-size commonly cited are the Kinsey study, the UCSF study, and an Italian study, none of which even attempted to correlate size with race. There have been many other studies with claims of varying rigor such as the LifeStyles condoms study, but these are generally flawed by selection bias. Frequently cited is the study of J. Phillipe Rushton (1987), but Rushton's data are questionably fitted to his personal theories of racial behavior, including his claims that blacks are inherently inferior in brain size and are thus prone to criminality. Despite the unproven nature of the penis stereotype, it nonetheless leads to the perception that interracial relations are based more on penis size compatibility than simply on personal attraction, which also parallels the popular beliefs surrounding white female/black male relationships.

-- Gnetwerker 22:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Wzhao asked me to weigh in so here I am. Frankly I think these penis size sections have represented exactly what is wrong with this article: it is being used as a soapbox to construct a unified theory of media representations of Asians and Asian Americans and how those representations cause harm. An article with the title "Asian fetish" should be strictly limited in scope rather. Instead it keeps veering towards something like Asian American contemporary issues which seems to be what many are after but insist on turning this article into, rather than creating a new article which would be the appropriate thing to do. An encyclopedia article is not meant to be exhaustive; that's why "external links" and "further reading" sections exist.--ThreeAnswers 16:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent suggestion. ThreeAnswers. Since several editors have already complained that the entire Asian male section is only tangentially related to Asian fetish, we can move the entire section into an Asian American contemporary issues article. Thanks for the input. --Wzhao553 18:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

ThreeAnswers's analysis is insightful. I am strongly in favor of a smaller, more focused article. -- Gnetwerker 19:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see how penis size have to do with asian fetish. I think that should be place in an article called asian stereotypes or misconceptions. I am asian and is well awared of the personal issues asian americans faces in the U.S., but I imagined an article labelled "Asian Fetish" would be a rather 2 paragraph small article that says something like "non asians who have a fetish for people of asian descent. This concept is normally used in the media....." --Doomzaber 22:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and have many times suggested that WzHao create Asian American social activism or something similar. -- Gnetwerker 23:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Outside view

Sorry I haven't had the time to get involved in this article, but I can tell what you guys are talking about. I have two important notes to add to this:

1. Firstly make sure all your statements are sourced and the sources are relevant to this article.
2. Also, whoever wants to talk about penis size should first make a case for its relevance to this article. The title of the article is "Asian fetish". As far as I know this only applies to Asian women. If you want to talk about Asian men then not only should the material be directly relevant to Asian fetish, but the context should also have to do with Asian fetish. Bascially, no off-topic statements.

If for some reason you believe these two points are being ignored, contact me immediately and I'll take a closer look. Aucaman^Talk 04:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why women (or men) could not have a fetish for asian men. That would probably have to be supported by sources; however, referring to the fetish as exclusively for asian women would also have to be supported by sources. Шизомби 04:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Non-Asian men with a "fetish" for Asian men are called "rice queens." There exists substantial literature in Asian American queer writing that deals with this, but I am not personally familiar with much of it. I agree that non-Asian women could have a fetish for Asian men, but there exists far less literature and evidence of this (in the US). There have been various attempts to insert paragraphs about this in Canada and the UK (see the last paragraph of this section), but they have all been reverted by other editors. --Wzhao553 04:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think having a fetish with any race is possible. It depends on how the media depicts it. If they were more movies with a passionate asian male towards, the stereotype of them being asexual will become a myth. the media has the power to protray any race in a negative or positive light. In the past, asian males were regarded as hypersexual, though this was a bad thing, back then.--Doomzaber 09:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, the para in quesiton was deleted because it was completely unsourced. -- Gnetwerker 17:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Rice queens, right. There's an article about gay male Asian porn star Brandon Lee in Linda William's Porn Studies but no mention of asian fetish there despite a discussion of stereotypes, though maybe some of the texts in the bibliography might. Шизомби 20:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Guys over exeggerates the importantness of their dicks, that a all I can say... --MeowKun 03:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

To all the Wikipedian contributors!

I love this article! I just wanna say thank you for deciding to keep this amazing article that you would never see in a regular encyclopedia! I totally agree with you that most Asian females do date Caucasian men b/c they are more sexually appealing. Now that I read this article, I feel like like the only guy I wanna date is Caucasian men. Thanks again for your inspiration. (207.156.196.242)

And to all other readers: do not feed the trolls. The user above is a high school student who probably has never had a date in his life. -- Gnetwerker 19:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that sort of hypocritical to insult him/her like that then? That's feeding in my mind.--SeizureDog 06:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well you can understand her response in a way, racism, as displayed in this article is very ugly and unsexy...--Hontogaichiban 14:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It works vice-versa too. Asian women are hot, that's all there is too it. It probably has something to do with the color of their skin and the fineness of their hair. Also, factor in that Asians in America tend to be more wealthy and intelligent than thier Caucasian counter-parts, therefore being a more desirable mate. This can be attributed to sampling bias: while intelligent and well-to-do Asians may have the resources and motivation to move to the U.S., poor Asians have to stay abroad (out of the sampling pool). There is also the immigration are by their very nature more self motivated (otherwise they wouldn't have immigrated) and the fact that many Asian countries such as China and Japan have tougher schools, and you can have relatively non-racist explanation for why Asian-Americans are more successful. Whatever the case, I'm am going to ask out a smart, beautiful, disiplined Asian woman out and I don't want to be bothered by people who accuse me of being "fetish". Single guy 01:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Single GuySingle guy 01:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Gosh that is just ignorance! Most asian americans do not fit the model minority. I guess that is why you are single and maybe never even talk to a girl of any ethnicity, so you have to use the media as your guide of how people of different ethnic groups act. A common stereotype of foreign women is that they are discipline and passive. The media exploits this idea, which is why people who are of a different ethnic group would want to date an asian, latina, or any other third world country women. they believe they are the perfect women since they do what they are told. I have news for ya, it doesn't work like this since asian and latina women are quite strong. I am sorry that you may have gotten that idea from the Last Samurai, but it is the media playing iwth your head. Your comment about the wealthy asians comming here is true to a degree, but not all asians are Chinese or Japanese descent. Some immigrate here because of the war in southeast asia, which includes poor chinese families as well. The media exploits asian females as being very sexual and such while exploiting asian males as the opposite.--69.236.66.75 05:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to clairify. The "smart, beautiful, disiplined Asian woman" I was referring to was a specific person I know by name. She's got near perfect grades, and everyone knows she is a nice person. Of course, I know Asian women who are at the opposite end of the spectrum. I consider myself equal opportunity when it comes to dating, which is why I try to get to know people of all races. I am just frustrated with accusations of Asian fetish, because it implies that just because I am asking an Asian girl out I have fetish. This happened last time I asked a girl out (she was Arab) and it is really annoying.Single guy 01:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to keep you hanging. Just in case, I am the one who also made the post is the one above yours, single guy. If what you like someone because of looks and not because of some ethnic stereotype, then by all means, go for it. I wish you luck. However and this applies to anyone who is planning to date someone of another ethnic group, just be ready to deal with other people's blacklash about dating someone of a different race. It happens to all ethnic groups.--169.237.135.147 21:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't use Wikipedia as a discussion forum. From What Wikipedia is not, "Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. There are a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate." --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Asian Men with Asian Fetish

If an "Asian" man only dates "Asian" women does he have an "Asian Fetish"? If not, why not? Just another argument why this whole page is just a load of racist mumbo jumbo (IMHO).--Hontogaichiban 22:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If his understanding of Asian women is limited to Western stereotypes and misconceptions of Asian women, then yes. Otherwise, no. --Wzhao553 00:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagreee with Wzhao553. I think it depends on how you define "fetish" and "asian fetish," so I think an asian man could (but certainly wouldn't necessarily) have an asian (woman) fetish. A redhead could have a redhead fetish, a fat person a fat fetish, etc. Шизомби 01:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I just think what we are describing here is a preference, it's not clear if we are talking about a preference based on a woman's appearence or her culture, but either way it is a preference. If the preference is based on racial myths, then the person is just plain racist.--Hontogaichiban

My own take on it is that people may be identified or self-identify, jokingly or seriously, as having an asian fetish when they only have a preference. That preference might be more accurately be labeled a fetish when it is their primary or exclusive attraction. That attraction might be based on (1) appearance or (2) supposed behavioral and/or ideological characteristics or (3) some combination thereof. Other people seem to define it differently, however. Шизомби 02:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Evolutionary Drive to Outbreed

Another point worth remembering is that often people will be attracted to individuals with a more exotic appearence, accent or culture. This is quite probably because of the benefits of outbreeding. It is well documented that children of so called "mixed-race" are healthier than children born from couples of the same "race". It would be possible to make arguments critising those who only date within their own "race" as being inbreeders or to some degree incestuous, that sounds more like a fetish to me... --Hontogaichiban 02:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This line of reasoning has already been suggested by an anonymous German editor and rejected by consensus for inclusion in the article. I was initially emphatic in my view that it warrants inclusion, but there were enough editors opposed to it to decidedly overrule me. --Wzhao553 03:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Right well they had better come up with some proper sources to defend their point of view, because I can certainly come up with some. If they can't we will put it back in. ALthough I think it could be phrased in a more positive way that as I have done above (where I was emphasising the point.)--Hontogaichiban 15:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I can see how a discussion of that could be related to this, but perhaps the problem is that linking the two could be considered original research if no source can be cited linking the two? If there's a WP article on it, perhaps a see also would be less problematic. Which archive(s) was the discussion of this topic in? Шизомби 18:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It was the first section of Talk:Asian_fetish/Archive_6, discussing the section found here. --Wzhao553 21:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Шизомби 00:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I read through that section. What is being covered there is, entirely as far as I can see, pseudoscientific and would not be taken seriously by most evolutionary biologists and psychologists. It is all conjecture and theory with no solid evidence whatsoever. It is clearly designed to be racist. Although I don't doubt that these things have been published I think reproducing pseudoscientific theories can be dangerous in itself. A bit like the disproportionate amount of attention given to creationism, which can make it seem to outside observers like such pseudoscience is on an equal footing with more proven science when it clearly isn't. I don't think what I was suggesting above is linked to these theories. --Hontogaichiban 00:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous German editor was attempting to use anthropological research to prove his assertions of how people might be attracted to individuals with a more exotic appearance, and of the benefits of outbreeding. If that is not what you had in mind, then I misunderstood you. Please clarify. --Wzhao553 00:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I may not be looking at the right article then (sorry still not completely fluent in wiki). The section I looked at was not talking about attraction to individuals with more exotic characteristics, but was making some very dubious comments about paedophilia in relation to Asian women. It was also talking about some other pseudoscience relating to male and female gametes!? Is this the section we're talking about?--Hontogaichiban 12:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget outbreeding brings about the genetic dilution theory: Asians (Including South Asians) outnumber whites, therefore Asian interrelations will result in the eventual extinction of whites.--67.177.185.125 03:39, 5 June 2006

Firstly how do you define whites and asians? Secondly, there would be no more extinction of whites than there would be Asians, the offspring would inherit equally. However, I'm sure in the very long run, if Humans survive long enough, "races" as we know them today will become meaningless and personally I don't think that would be a particularly bad thing. Remember the Roman empire ran from scotland to north africa. Soldiers were recruited in africa and sent to defend Hadrians wall in Scotland, those soldiers often married locally and died there. The result of all this was that it is quite hard 2000 years later to spot the different ethnic groups that originally made up europe, hence we now say European looking, before the Romans the British natives had red hair and pale skin, the French had brown hair and green eyes and the Germans blond hair and blue eyes (to simplify).--Hontogaichiban 01:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Asian fetish" is based on appearence or culture?

When those of you who believe in "Asian fetish" label people with this term, are you asserting that these individuals are attracted by a woman's "asian" appearence, her culture or both? --Hontogaichiban 02:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

To be honest as an quite "Eurasian looking" (To some extent of the people in North America) Chinese girl from Hong Kong, I don't know what is really with that. Probably a product of assumption, stereotypes and expectation.. --MeowKun 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The main reason is deinitely the "exotic" looks. Another major reason is of cultural expectations; that she would do everything in the house.--Ryz05 _t 20:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"White" fetish

I used to live in Japan and there "White" women are idolised by a large number of men. This meant that on the more benign side, you had many Japanese men idolising western singers and actresses and on the more extreme side you had large numbers of "White" women coming over to work in hostess bars.

I also know a number of Asian men who have only dated "White" women since high school, they almost always go for stereotypical blonds. I know this is only anecdotal evidence, but I'm sure that other contributers to this discussion must also have come across such individuals. There maybe more "White" mean marrying "Asian" women in the US than the other way around, but this may not be down to a lack of desire on the "Asian" men's part but more a lower rate of success in converting these relatioships to marriage, perhaps not least because "White" women are more likely to come from cultures where marriage is not as desirable as it is in asian cultures.--Hontogaichiban 00:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there are people with a preference for, or a fetish for, every "race" there is. "White fetish" doesn't get many hits, and at least some are for other things (e.g. cinephiles with a b&w fetish), but having such a fetish may be called something else. There might be less writing about other fetishes; why that would be, I don't know. "Caucasion fetish" brought up practically no hits at all, though it did bring up a Savage Love column in which Dan Savage differentiated between people with an attraction to Asians (or others) versus people with a racist attraction.[13] Шизомби 01:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like Mr Savage agrees with me. One interesting part of those letters, is that someone talks about individuals who only want to "bang a stereotype", I guess this would mean a relationship where demands are constantly put on somone to behave in a stereotypical way rather than their natural behaviour, especially during sex. I suppose this might be the elusive definition of where normal attraction becomes a fetish? Somehow though, I'm not sure all the "Asian" "Activists" (possibly read "racists") that support this article could sign up to this definition as it might not quite give them the ammunition they are looking for? Love to hear peoples opinions on this.--Hontogaichiban 12:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Interracial dating is a tricky thing. I am asian and know some people who are caucassian and have an asian wife. However, I am cool with that since the guy didn't date here because of the asian stereotypes. Furthermore, with the stereotypes in Hollywood, interracial dating is a form of power where the man is more dominate than the woman. What I mean is that in the movies, the women usually give up their identity and their background to please the man and this symbolizes that What I don't like is hollywood's skew view of interracial dating. It is more shallow than the real thing.

Dating is an odd thing really. If you think about it, a person dating a particular race is the same thing as one only going out with another of the same race.

For me, I prefer all races. However, I usually prefer looks as the first thing to go out with someone. To be honest, I find asian,latina, and caucassian(in no order) women(bruettes) the most attractive. It has nothing to do with their personality that makes me attractive to these two ethnic groups the most, but just their face.

What irks me is that people would date only because of what the TV told them how a certain race acts. As for the caucassian guy has a asian wife, I look up to him. Unlike the hollywood stereotypes where they usually make the man dominate teh woman have her and her kids to sumbit with the white culture, this person doesn't do this. To me, the way hollywood protrays interracial dating symbolizes dominance and power based soley on race. However, as for a few I knew, they doesn't seem to do that. They usually speak both tongues, in english and another language. they also teach their kids both cultures and not just be limited to western culture.

There are white fetishes. Have anyone seen jungle fever. However, with the way, Hollywood does it(which I read on newsweek) they try to tone this down in hiphop movies by having a latina woman for the lead black character instead. I find it interesting from reading the article is that from the lead AA characters has to demand for a AA wife for the film. --69.236.66.75 06:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Propagators of the "Asian" fetish myth are not all "Asian" males

Well apart form the fact that some "Asian" females also like to use the term, a number of "White" women also use the term. In my experience (anecdotal as well, but I don't see much of any other kind of evidence on this rather worthless article) it is sometimes used by "White" women to descibe "White" men dating "Asian" women, it seems to me, due purely to jealousy.--Hontogaichiban 00:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Amen, brother. I live in Japan, and the western women here ALWAYS use that term because the male foreigners here (at least in my city) almost exclusively date Japanese women (myself included). And it has NOTHING to do with stereotypes - I personally think, in general, Asian women are more physically beautiful, an opinion which, sadly, seems to baffle most Japanese women here. I believe that there are idiots out there who will date Asians exclusively because they think that the stereotype is true, but the term gets thrown around way too much, and it does seem to be stemming from jealousy when western women use it. I can understand the jealousy though - they can't compete :) --Nobunaga24 09:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was particularly thinking of western women in Japan when I talked about this (having lived there on and off myself). Mind you I don't know what their problem is as there a large numbers of Japanese men that would like to date western women...--Hontogaichiban 21:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Curious Article

Fetish dictionary definition:

   * Any object...
   * Any object...
   * Any non-sexual object...

Because Asians are objects, right?

`Asians' as described here are people. It is curious to see an article on `Asian fetishes' without there being one on the typical Blonde Fetish (search that on wikipedia, check out the fourth result), long hair fetish, and so on.

There may be men or women who particularly seek out Asians, but I doubt that those men or women are interested in all Asians. Similarly, some men or women are attracted to people with blonde hair, blue eyes; African or African-Americans; big muscles. No one questions Asian predilection for white skin (both men and women), no one questions a man who consistently brings home women with long brown wavy hair. This article seems to me to be unfounded and simply the result of personal sentiment and point of view. With Google's suggestion that it is relevant, I would say people are keen when a white person consistently dates an Asian person -- it is simply less apparent or affects others indifferently when any of the other afforentioned cases occurs. Dan 21:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

100% agree with this posting. --Hontogaichiban 21:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Dan.--Dark Tichondrias 02:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The argument from Wzhao, which you can read in the archives, is that the fetish is not toward a person by a stereotype of a person. From there it devolves into complex arguing based around this notion of a "post-colonial racial fetish", which doesn't follow the dictionary definition at all. This doesn't mean that I agree with the argument. However, as Wikipedia is "the dictionary that everyone can edit" we strive to include all remotely plausible views that are supported by sources. The Asian social activist version of the term is certainly in reasonably wide use, whether you agree with its definition or not. As a non-Asian, I do not pretend to understand the full extent of the outrage felt by Americans who feel stigmatized by racism. -- Gnetwerker 23:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find definitions of "fetish" that are not so limited. There are fetishes for particular kinds of people, e.g. acrotomophilia (amputees). Whether fetishes are objectifying probably depends on the specific nature of an individual's fetish, the definition of object and one's politics. While there doesn't appear to be an article on blonde fetishism, there is the stub Trichophilia which as defined appears to cover it, and also Redhead fetishism and Depilation fetishism. Шизомби 00:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thse are correctly classed as "paraphilia", and the word "fetish", when applied to them, is colloquially used but not accurate. -- Gnetwerker 01:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I confess I'm not sure where the distinction between a fetish and a paraphilia is. From an Amazon search, e.g. acrotomophilia is described as a fetish in Sexual Health across the Lifecycle: A Practical Guide for Clinicians, Useless Sexual Trivia: Tastefully Prurient Facts About Everyone's Favorite Subject and The Mammoth Book of Vampire Stories by Women, but appears to be described as a paraphilia in most others. Шизомби 02:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm, that's a really good question. It says in Lowenstein, L.F. (Summer 2002). "Fetishes and Their Associated Behavior". Sexuality and Disability 20 (2): 135 -- 147:

A combination of fetishes were studied by Furnham and Haraldsen (1998). They studied four types of paraphilia; fetishism, paedophilia, sexual sadism and voyeurism.

If I understand that correctly, then fetishism is a form of paraphilia. --Wzhao553 04:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but not all paraphilia are fetishes. Also, the quote supplied above is insufficient to form much of a conclusion, and I'm not sure The Mammoth Book of Vampire Stories is exactly a reliable source on psychiatric disorders. -- Gnetwerker 05:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Granted, although some fiction writers do research their material. I was including it for the sake of completeness. The first book I cited, though, has it included in a table titled "A selected sample of fetishes," in turn reproduced from Sexual Health Monograph no. 267 American Academy of Family Physicians. Шизомби 05:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"Because Asians are objects, right?" Actually, yes, they are. When someone has a fetish for the stereotype of Asian women, that person is objectifying Asian people - that's why people take issue with 'yellow fever' in the first place. Theconroy 09:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That's an oversight. People can be attracted to Asians and still treat them like human beings, just like I could have a thing for girls with long brown curly hair and not treat them like objects. Contrarily, I could treat blondes like objects just like you are presuming that Asians 'are' treated as objects when it comes to preference (or fetish if you prefer). Dan 07:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I also want to add, after reading some of the articles via external links, that there are indeed levels of obsession. People may obsess about Asians in a similar way they obsess about a foot fetish or even a similar way to women with large breasts. I still see no clear reason for this article, at least without the addition of other articles on Amazon Woman Fetish, White Woman Fetish, etc. The only reason I can find that the article has not been deleted after two recommendations for deletion is something related to a theme I observed in the articles: Asian men or white women (since the wikipedia entry focusses on white men + asian women) feel threatened or that someone from another race is 'stealing' their opposite sex. Dan 07:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree.--Hontogaichiban 00:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well Dan, that's why I specifically said "when someone has a fetish for the stereotype of Asian women," and not "when people are attracted to Asians." I understand that people can be attracted to Asians and treat them like human beings - I have a liking for Asian dudes and I treat them like humans, heh.Theconroy 03:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Mongoloid Asians, Not South Asians

Although I think they should change this, people from Indian Subcontinent (South Asians) are generally described as "Asian" in United States. I think it is important that we specify that this article refers to Mongoloid Asians because as far as I know, Indian Americans aren't usually thought of as "Asian" (they are often looked as a race closer to Persians and Arabs who are generally characterized as "white"). So I am going to specify this in the article. Zachorious 06:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think south asians are often referred to as asians in the US, nor do I think they are seen as closer to persians and arabs. The question to be answered is, among people who use the term "asian fetish," do they apply it to south asians as well - and can that be verified. Шизомби 12:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually you are correct to a certain extent, South Asians are classified under the US Census as "Asian". However most of the public do not look at Indians as Asians. Most Indians are often mistaken for Persian, Arab, and sometimes even Italian (but never mistaken as a Chinese, Japanese, ect.). So I assume when an Asian fetishist thinks of an Asian they think Mongoloid. Zachorious 15:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I still don't think South Asians are often mistaken for those other groups. Maybe light-skinned ones would be sometimes. Regarding an asian fetish possibly including south asians, the UK magazine Asian Babes includes indians in with far easterners. The Ethnic stereotypes in pornography article claims that "In modern visual pornography: Black males and [...] Asian girls (women of Subcontinental origin) in Britain," is common. Unfortunately, that one is weak on citations (I have tagged it for that). Шизомби 17:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Several points, first of all as I mentioned before, Asians in the UK often refers to just Indian Sub-continental Asians. Also don't forget that race is just a myth and there are clines between China and India for example, so that the Nepalese are essentially half Far-eastern, half indian in appearence. Also I don't really thing Mongoloid is an acceptable term, though I'm sure you meant it in good faith. Let's not forget that many editors here would question whether there is such a thing as Asian Fetish and if there is, the definition is certainly up for grabs.--Hontogaichiban 00:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Goodbye

After about five months editing here, I have decided to take this page off of my watchlist. I came to this page because of an RFC that was posted due to an edit war and a series of (IMO) outrageously racist postings that were made. In the comparatively short time I've been here, I have been called racist, Asian-hating, Asian-loving, a traitor to my race (I'm Caucasian), and many other things. This page suffers regularly from being used as a poster for activists with a message to spread, and for white Americans and Europeans who think racism doesn't exist at all ("what are they worried about") or worse, is excused or explained by something. Good-hearted editors have been driven away on several occasions by the endless arguments, insults, and pettiness. Recently, however, some new editors have arrived and (at least for the moment), the tone is improved. As this topic does not hold an special interest for me, I will leave its future in your capable hands. -- Gnetwerker 20:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

References

It was mentioned to me that some of the references I mentioned above could possibly be added to the article. I expect to get around to that sometime, although if someone else wants to add them, they're not stepping on my toes. Шизомби 03:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment on an intro statement

A statement in the intro, "primarily East Asians (such as Japanese, Koreans, Taiwanese, ect.)," shouldn't the word Taiwanese, be replaced with Chinese? Afterall, there are more Chinese women than Taiwanese women because of the mainland's larger population. --Ryz05 _t 20:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The whole point of this article is that people are basing their "fetish" on stereotypes, there are no separate Chinese/Taiwanese stereotypes in this case. Adding Taiwanese is a political POV action.--Hontogaichiban 09:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

New tag

Downgraded the tag from {{NPOV}} to {{toofewopinions}}, which seems to provide a better picture of the problems still in this article and seems to be a more focused and meaningful way of encouraging more users to expand and improve the article. --Wzhao553 18:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Horrible backwardly biased article

This article has degenerated. The article originally spoke of the Asian fetish in a generally non-biased term. Now it actually is an article that has been written to basically deny the existence of the asian fetish or to actually promote that the asian fetish is a good thing. There are more statements in the article that state how the idea of the asian fetish is not a racist phenomenon (or that the idea of talking about its existence is racist) and how it does not exist than there are statements that discuss it's existence. Further, a lot of the supposedly unique contributers who are changing the article to make it a horrible article that denies the existence of the asian fetish seem to be coming from one or two IP addresses. We need to revert this article back to one of its original (and i daresay) more correct versions. Kennethtennyson 02:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, this article is still a work in progress. It seems to me that most of the criticisms of the term are more about defending and promoting Asian American interracial marriage than criticizing Asian fetish, which is often not even mentioned. Which is perfectly fine, so long as it's properly sourced (as it is) and it's contained in Asian American interracial marriage. But until we get around to creating that article, the information is simply stuck here. --Wzhao553 05:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that this article has degenerated. I still don't particularly like the existence of this article, but the article is far more balanced than it was before. It seems you are essentially complaining because the article is no longer just a soapbox for one extremest point of view. Unlike before there is some proper cited scientific research to refute aspects of the Asian Fetish assertion and explain other aspects of it. There is also some important material to more clearly define Asian fetish and distinguish it from normal relationships between asians and other ethnicities. There is no reverting to the old article, just because you don't like the tone of the article. If you have an issue with specific points, feel free to find independent, credible research that counters those points and add it in point by point.--Hontogaichiban 00:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Half of the criticism section doesn't even make sense or it's not even about Asian fetish. And it's in terrible need of citation. The detracting editors here are too busy defending interracial relationships, when, in reality, that is not even under attack. "Asian fetish" applies to those that have an unhealthy and racist attraction to Asian women, and sometimes to Asian men. Obviously not all interracial relationships are the result of Asian fetish, and the article never makes the claim that all interracial relationships are the result of Asian fetish.

Criticism of the usage and term "Asian fetish" should discuss how the sexual attraction of someone specifically Asian is not unhealthy, that it's perfectly normal, etc etc. But right now the criticism section concentrates on defending interracial relationships. It's basically off-topic. Hong Qi Gong 00:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the term "Asian fetish" is so poorly defined and unsupported itself by valid scientific research that it is hard to say anything is "off-topic". Certainly as much as the term itself is recognised, it's use as a label with which to attack couples in normal inter-racial relationships is also recognised.--Hontogaichiban 05:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, we can discuss how the term is used, and that sometimes it's used unjustly and incorrectly to label normal interracial relationships. But that's not a criticism of the term itself. A criticism of the term would have to discuss how there is nothing wrong with having a specific sexual preference for Asian people. You're defending something that's not under attack in this article when you defend interracial relationships in general. It's very simple:

• Being against Asian fetish does not automatically mean you are against interracial relationships.
• Supporting interracial relationships does not automatically mean you support Asian fetish.

The article does not make any claims to the contrary of the two points above. And in fact, there are a lot of interracial couples that are very against Asian fetish, because they don't want to be associated with interracial couples that were conceived by Asian fetish. Hong Qi Gong 06:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Couple of points

• Where is the line between "Asian fetish" and normal interracial relationships (I'm sure you can find extremes, but where is the line in the middle?)
• If you can answer that, where is the line between natural attraction to features and culture that happen to be most asssociated with asians and fetish related sexual preference for Asian people.
• To define asian fetish adequately you would have to define Asian. Again, it is very difficult to define a race as they don't exist in absolute terms. (see clines in race)
• I'm not convinced that there are couples where one person can be reliably said to have an Asian fetish. Most people I have ever seen or heard of, who could be labled as having an Asian fetish have either been total social pariahs or who have little chance of pulling anyone or they are total weirdos who visit prostitutes in foreign countries. I'm not sure a couple with any kind of long term relationship could base their relationship on stereotypes as these evaporate in days if not minutes. I would need to see some evidence that substantiates what may be a myth. Therefore it is possible that much of what people are labeling Asian fetish is infact just an incorrect label for people in interracial relationships therefore it is legitimate that interracial relationships are discussed in the context of this article.
• I would also urge you to remember that Wikipedia is an encylopedia of knowledge, that means it must reflect the balance of proven research.
• Finally remember that Wikipedia is an international project and therefore things you feel you know are true where you live and in the circles you move in may not be true universally. I too have to remember this and have been guilty of making asumptions in this way. But I have admited when I am wrong and when I only have part of the answer.

--Hontogaichiban 16:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I've had discussions about interracial relationships before, and they're never enjoyable to me. Like I keep saying, this topic is about Asian fetish, not interracial relationships. Yet you keep concentrating on the topic of interracial relationship. Let me try to respond to you:

• Where is the line between "Asian fetish" and normal interracial relationships (I'm sure you can find extremes, but where is the line in the middle?)

The answer to that doesn't matter to this article. The article is not about interracial relationships.

• If you can answer that, where is the line between natural attraction to features and culture that happen to be most asssociated with asians and fetish related sexual preference for Asian people.

That also does not matter for the purpose of this article. Again, the article does not claim that all interracial relationships with Asian people are the result of Asian fetish. Much of the current criticism section doesn't actually criticise Asian fetish at all. Much of it is simply in defense of interracial relationships - something which the article never attacked. The article claims that sexual attraction specifically to Asian people is unhealthy or otherwise socially negative. The criticism of Asian fetish should concentrate on how sexual attraction specifically to Asian people is perfectly healthy, socially normal, not negative, etc etc.

• To define asian fetish adequately you would have to define Asian. Again, it is very difficult to define a race as they don't exist in absolute terms. (see clines in race)

Yet, academia in the world all over manages to discuss and study race and racial issues. The topic of Asian fetish, in the scope of how well-defined the concept of race is, is no different from any other topics involving race and racial difference.

• I'm not convinced that there are couples where one person can be reliably said to have an Asian fetish. Most people I have ever seen or heard of, who could be labled as having an Asian fetish have either been total social pariahs or who have little chance of pulling anyone or they are total weirdos who visit prostitutes in foreign countries. I'm not sure a couple with any kind of long term relationship could base their relationship on stereotypes as these evaporate in days if not minutes. I would need to see some evidence that substantiates what may be a myth. Therefore it is possible that much of what people are labeling Asian fetish is infact just an incorrect label for people in interracial relationships therefore it is legitimate that interracial relationships are discussed in the context of this article.

Again - off topic. The article is not about interracial relationships. It's about Asian fetish. Asian fetish exists, at the bare minimum, as a concept, as evidenced by the sources in the article. If you want to talk about how long term relationships are not based on Asian fetish, that belongs in a topic about interracial relationships.

• I would also urge you to remember that Wikipedia is an encylopedia of knowledge, that means it must reflect the balance of proven research.

Yes, and you're also talking about an encyclopedia with an extensive directory of porn stars. Again, if you want to provide balance in the form of criticism of Asian fetish, then do so instead of defending interracial relationships, which is a different topic.

• Finally remember that Wikipedia is an international project and therefore things you feel you know are true where you live and in the circles you move in may not be true universally. I too have to remember this and have been guilty of making asumptions in this way. But I have admited when I am wrong and when I only have part of the answer.

That's why sources are important. Much of the criticism section is not sourced, nevermind that it's off-topic.

Hong Qi Gong 17:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The article claims that sexual attraction specifically to Asian people is unhealthy or otherwise socially negative.

If it says that it shouldn't, because Wikipedia is not a soap box, it shouldn't be making claims it should be reporting fact or research based theories.

Who said that "Asian fetish" only refers to sexual attraction specifically to Asian people which is unhealthy or otherwise socially negative."? Who's definition is that? How do you define "unhealthy" in this context or "socially negative"?

You can only say interracial relationships are off topic if you can adequately define "Asian fetish".

I don't see how saying that interracial relationships are not based on asian fetish can be in any article other than one about asian fetish.

Again, is there a clear definition of "Asian fetish"

One of the problems here is that "Asian fetish" is not a very developed concept and has very little evidence to back it up, let alone a water tight definition. Therefore it is not really possible for you to say what is and what is not relevant in this article - personally I have long argued that this article is not worthy of existence, but given that it is going to be here, it's vague nature is going to attract a lot of material from a broad spectrum.

Some of the criticism may not be sourced, but the arguments for the concept are either not sourced or very poorly sourced too.

I think you will find that most modern academia is very careful in its use of the term race and within science the term is carefully qualified where it is used. The only valid material which uses races, as they are colloquially refered to, would have to be studying race as a social construct, where in some places it does exist in such a way.

As the article stands now I think it is quite balanced in its coverage of the concept. I would be genuinely interested in what you think the article should consist of, what subsections and containing what?

Seems "Asian fetish" as you are advocating is more a belief than a scientific concept.

Personally I am happy for the article to detail the case for the concept of "Asian fetish" and then to list the counter arguments. This seems only fair when it comes to such a poorly researched and ill-defined concept. It feels like (correct me if I'm wrong) that you will only be happy when the article presents "Asian fetish" as fact, completely unchallenged.

This article has previously been the site of major edit wars and deletion battles. It had recently reached a state of stability with editors from both sides agreeing on the broad layout and content as it is now, if you make sweeping changes this consens will collapse. The article must remain balanced and cover all aspects that people feel are reasonably connected to the term "Asian fetish".

I am genuinely open to having my mind changed about this article, but I'm not yet convinced.--Hontogaichiban 02:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hontogaichiban, you make many excellent points, which I think should find their way into the future structuring of this article.Logoi 08:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Asian fetish is defined in the beginning of the article. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this - the article never attacked interracial relationship. No matter how "vague" you seem to think the definition of Asian fetish is, the article never criticises interracial relationship. A defense of interracial relationship is not even relevant. You and others are ruining this article by insisting on a defense of interracial relationship as if it's under attack when it's not at all under attack. Being against Asian fetish does not mean you're against interracial relationships.

You've already made it clear that you don't like the existence of the article. Everything you just said in your previous statement confirms that. But it's been through two deletion nominations already, so get over it. Put some relevant criticism in the section if you're so critical of the idea that Asian fetish is negative. So far all it does is defend interracial relationship, something that was never under attack in the first place. The Controversy section of the article, for example, has some great opposing views. The Criticisms section of the article, on the other hand, is crap. Hong Qi Gong 04:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of term inbreeding in exogamy section

The use of the term inbreeding here is technically correct. People of the same "race" are more closely related than those from two different races. It is correct in this context to describe it as inbreeding, as mentioned further down the paragraph, it is undeniable that where there are offpring from intraraccial relationships there is a higher rate of genetic abnormalities, albeit lower than that found where even more severe inbreeding takes place such as those found between cousins or siblings.--Hontogaichiban 12:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The sentence in question says "dating" someone of your own race. "Inbreeding" is defined as procreation with a close relative. Furthermore, it's been found that there is more genetic difference and variation between two random individuals of the same race, then there are between genetic difference that differentiates two races. In fact, that entire paragraph about inbreeding and outbreeding, and how it supposedly ties into dating, amounts to a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. Hong Qi Gong 15:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point regards use of the term dating - I guess it is used to emphasise the attraction part which precedes procreation but it is not the term used in the sources referenced (I have changed it on your suggestion). As for "No original research" I agree, but there is nothing in the paragraph which could be called original research - it is well referenced.--Hontogaichiban 23:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's original research because nothing in the sources (correct me if I'm wrong) say that if you are attracted to or date someone of your own race, that is an unhealthy tendency. That's the first thing that the paragraph claims. The section came to this conclusion on its own based on cited research on inbreeding. Firstly, like I said before, greater genetic variation has been found between two randomly picked individuals of the same race than there are genetic variations between two different races. Secondly, the article never tried to define "Asian" on purely genetic terms, and you yourself have already said that "Asian" is a social construct.

I'll try to lay it down for you in a simple example - an Asian person could have a white grandparent, yet look fully Asian and self-identify only as Asian. This same Asian person could then be related to any random white person through his or her grandparent and runs the risk of inbreeding by procreating with a white person related to him by his grandparent. You simply cannot jump through logic holes and go from attraction to someone of your own race to inbreeding. This would be original research.

Simply to say, unless there is a source to say that attraction to or dating someone of your own race is unhealthy compared to attraction to or dating someone of another race, you cannot make that claim. That's why I put the citation tag there. In fact, I think the whole paragraph should be deleted or edited. But it's obvious that you are not willing to compromise on what I personally think is a completely illogical claim since you keep reverting even a simple citation tag.

And still, that paragraph remains irrelevant to the topic of Asian fetish. It tries to make the claim that it is healthy to date someone of another race, but how does it defend Asian fetish as a perfectly normal tendency, that is to say, sexual attraction specifically to Asian people as perfectly normal, and not someone simply of a any race other than your own? It doesn't even go as far as to defend interracial relationships for Asian people, which is what seems to be the entire purpose of the Criticism section. It defends interracial relationships between ANY races. Hong Qi Gong 01:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Firstly, like I said before, greater genetic variation has been found between two randomly picked individuals of the same race than there are genetic variations between two different races.

You are going to have to get a reference for that. I agree there is not a huge genetic difference between different "races" but the statement you have made is not true in more than 99.9% of cases, genetic divergence increases roughly in line with geographic separation. "Races" are generally separated geographically.

• Simply to say, unless there is a source to say that attraction to or dating someone of your own race is unhealthy compared to attraction to or dating someone of another race, you cannot make that claim.

As I said before, this is a relative thing, the differences in the level of "Healthyness" are not huge but they are there, and yes, if you check the sources cited, there is plenty of evidence.

• but how does it defend Asian fetish as a perfectly normal tendency, that is to say, sexual attraction specifically to Asian people as perfectly normal, and not someone simply of a any race other than your own?

That's a better critisism, but then this aspect doesn't pretend to explain the whole "Asian fetish" phenominum, it is just a possible part of the answer.--Hontogaichiban 18:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Exogamy Section

The entire exogamy section is irrelevant, if not insulting. First, it was clearly there to defend interracial relationships in general, not only Asian/Non-Asian ones, and as such doesn't belong on this page. Next, this page is about Asian Fetish, not pro/con of Asian interracial relationship. If anyone wants to start an article on Asian interracial relationships, then by all means go ahead. Be The Reds! 22:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant at all it is a possible healthy explanation for what is considered unhealthy behaviour. As Asian/Non-Asian relationships are interracial relationships it DOES belong on this page. As I have said elsewhere, if you think the term "Asian fetish" has nothing to do with asian interracial relationships you obviously are not aware of how the phrase is actually used in real life.--Hontogaichiban 18:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Who keeps putting exogamy back into the article? Stop it! That's not what this article is about!Bethereds 15:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Clash of Cultures Section

This is an attempt to reason out why some Asian women might want to date out. It has nothing to do with Asian fetish. Furthermore it is insulting to Asian Men to suggest that they also can't be a part of a clash of cultures.Be The Reds! 22:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of content

Please try to reach a little more of a clear consensus before removing large blocks of text from an article, as that appears very much like vandalism. I handed out a warning based on this (which I will now rescind), but please do leave a note on a talk page for a little bit to allow for responses (as with WP:FARC used to be, leaving a list of issues that can be dealt with for a while before just jumping into a FARC). Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Or... you could have checked the Talk page before jumping the gun on sticking a vandalism tag on somebody. Hong Qi Gong 17:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Staxringold, you can't just wipe out whole sections without consensus.--Hontogaichiban 18:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Fetish

It seems like we're having trouble defining "Asian fetish". I can't find an online definition of "Asian fetish" but there are definitions of "fetish" from respected sources. www.dictionary.com defines fetish as:

1. An object that is believed to have magical or spiritual powers, especially such an object associated with animistic or shamanistic religious practices. 2. An object of unreasonably excessive attention or reverence: made a fetish of punctuality. 3. Something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification. 4. An abnormally obsessive preoccupation or attachment; a fixation.

I think definition 3 is what applies to this article. In this case, the fetish is race. How we fit "Asian" into this definition is beyond me, but maybe this is a start. Plan B: Can we just put something in the Wiktionary and say that that for the purposes of editing this articler, it is our official definition? Either way, it would be could if we had a clear idea of what we were talking about. Single guy 02:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree this is a major part of the problem. Obviously, non of the definitions listed is very satisfactory. Don't be too quick to state that the fetish here is race either, it could just as well be Asian culture as it could be race, and is most likely to be combination of the two, or race is used as a marker for culture. Then again as I've said repeatedly, I think the term "Asian fetish" is most often used as an attack on interracial relationships - though I do acknowledge that there is are some people who have a stereotypical sexually orientated attitute to Asian women. Finally we cannot make up our own definition of the term as this would be original research and would be misleading.--Hontogaichiban 11:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Bravo, Logoi

Bravo, Logoi, on making an attempt to state what this article is really about. Your paragraph was unsourced opinion, but that really doesn't matter because this whole article is a string of one unsubstatiated opinion after another. As anyone who bothers to read them can tell, the "sources" used in this article are completely biased opinion pieces.

The one by Frank Chin and Jeffery Paul Chan is particulary idiotic and funny-- Whites intermarry with Asians due to white supremacy. Right. We all know white supremacists want nothing more than mixed-race children. And I supposed if pressed, the authors can cook up some "facts" (sourced by more opinion pieces) to prove this idiocy. The truth, of course, is that racial supremacists, both white and Asian, are against mixed-race marriage. And the purpose of this whole article is to paint mixed-race marriage as one of those carefully cataloged Sex crimes against Asian women in the United States. (Asian/Asian, white/white sex crimes don't matter to the racial supremacist, of course.)

And don't you love that disclaimer at the top? This article is not about love and/or interracial relationships... when that's exactly what every "source" refers to? Just assert without evidence that the white partner is completely brainwashed by some media stereotypes, and voila, their relationship is not "love," but a "fetish."

It's kind of amusing to see these guys red-faced and sputtering against mixed-race marriages while claiming they're fighting racism. If the authors of this article were really concerned about the real racism facing the Asian-American community, they certainly wouldn't be attacking those who marry into that community. The true agenda behind this article is apparent to anyone who reads it. It's best to just sit back and watch it grow more and more obvious. -- Human Fetishist 20:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to document how this term is actually used in various contexts. I think there should be some examples of usage given culled from popular media and anywhere else it is used--and these uses should be analyzed. Perhaps start a section of examples of its usage.

All the points you make are logically valid and therefore should go into the article. Logoi 08:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahh... The quote by Frank Chin and Jeffery Paul Chan does not mention interracial marriage at all. In fact, throughout the entire article that they wrote in 1972, the one that's used as a source here, never does it mention either interracial marriage or interracial relationships.

As I've said, being against Asian fetish does not mean you are automatically against interracial relationships. It just means you are against Asian people being sexually objectified. A defense of interracial relationships is no criticism of the usage of Asian fetish. Those are two different, although related, issues, and this article is not about interracial relationships. Hong Qi Gong 20:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

HongQiGong, you don't seem to have any knowledge of how the phrase "Asian fetish" is used. Yes, sometimes it describes a weirdo who is obsessed with Asians due to some kind of strange stereotype. Most of the time however, it is used to criticise relationships between Asians and people of other "races". That is why this article spends so much time looking at interracial relationships.--Hontogaichiban 18:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Asian fetish does not describe interracial relationships.

Stop adding a defense of interracial relationship into the article. Asian fetish does not describe or attack interracial relationships. A defense of interracial relationship is irrelevant, and is not a valid criticism of Asian fetish. Asian fetish describes a type of sexual preference or attraction. Hong Qi Gong 20:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Your objection is noted. However, it is refuted by the sources cited, and indeed by the entire history of editing this page.

(Pardon the repeated edits, but I'm still getting used to wikipedia) I agree with you in principle: if we define "asian fetish" to mean an attraction to asians, then this is a separate matter (although not entirely separate, since attraction forms the basis of most modern relationships) from whether that attraction leads to a relationship or not. However, if we do this, we cannot logically contrast "Asian fetish" with "normal healthy relationships" since the two are incommensurate _by definition_. Also, simply saying that it has to do with attraction to asians doesn't distinguish what would make this attraction "healthy" or "unhealthy." This is just basic logic. However, for an encyclopedia, we are not allowed to define "asian fetish" to mean anything we want it to mean. We are constrained to reporting on how it is used, which happens to be all over the map. Logoi 08:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Check the sources referenced, Asian fetish is always described as an attraction to Asian people. And any negative connotations attached to Asian fetish has been to describe such an attraction, not to describe interracial relationships. We already cannot logically contrast Asian fetish with interracial relationships of any sort. The repeated edits, by virtue of the fact that they are repeated, do not make them valid. They defend something that need no defense in the context of this article in the first place. Hong Qi Gong 16:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that relationships that people claim come from an asian fetish have nothing to do with an asian fetish? Should we then remove all the articles which go on to discuss asian fetishes in the context of inter-ethnic romances? Logoi 18:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

HongQiGong, you don't seem to have any knowledge of how the phrase "Asian fetish" is used. Yes, sometimes it describes a weirdo who is obsessed with Asians due to some kind of strange stereotype. Most of the time however, it is used to criticise relationships between Asians and people of other "races". That is why this article spends so much time looking at interracial relationships.--Hontogaichiban 18:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Which was why I added the "Usage" sub-section in the Criticism section. However, much of the Criticism section equates "Asian fetish" to a description of interracial relationship, when the article clearly defines it as a description of a type of attraction. Most of the Criticism section is completely illogical. And the Exogamy section is plain offensive as it implies that same-race relationships are close to inbreeding. Hong Qi Gong 00:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't delete a section because you perceive it to be offensive. Some people find the idea that we evolved from monkeys offensive, it doesn't make it untrue. Same-race relationships are inbreeding relative to interracial relationships. It's a relative thing. You can say that same sex relationships are more incestuous, but you can't say they are incestuous, its the difference between absolute and relative, an important concept.--Hontogaichiban 22:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are talking about a totally different subject. Write whatever you want to write about interracial relationships on the apropriate article. This one isn't about interracial relationships.Bethereds 04:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

HongQiGong's 3RR violation

Someone should report HongQiGong's 3RR violation. Maybe a break will give him a chance to go out and get into a relationship-- preferably an interracial one-- so he can learn that in the real world sexual preferences and attractions do have some bearing on relationships. (As if he didn't know the purpose of this article as well as everyone else.) -- Human Fetishist 21:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll take responsibility if the admins want to take action against me - but bear in mind that my last two edits were one after another. I did not revert a new edit by another user with my last edit. For all practical purposes, my last two edits were basically one revert. But like I said, I'll gladly take responsibility if the admins want to take action.

However, this article is still not about interracial relationships. It neither describes or attacks interracial relationships. A defense of interracial relationship is completely irrelevant.

And thanks for the advice, Human Fetishist - I actually am in an interracial relationship right now. Like I've said a few times before in this Talk page itself - being against Asian fetish does not mean you are against interracial relationships. Likewise, supporting interracial relationships does not mean you support Asian fetish.

Also, next time you choose to attack me, however inadequately so, I will report you for a personal attack. Hong Qi Gong 21:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the Human Fetishist on some of their points. People should be encouraged to have romantic relationships with people of different social identities. I also agree real world sexual preferences and attractions have a bearing on relationships. --Dark Tichondrias 19:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Sexuality and Stereotypes Section with Ethnic stereotypes in American media

I would like to merge the Sexual Stereotypes section after the first paragraph of that section into the Asian section of Ethnic stereotypes in American media where it belongs. Comments? Logoi 22:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, just before you do, is there any call to explain this paragraph in terms of asian fetish? I'm not saying I think there is, but is there? I suppose it is a counter to the argument that "Asian fetish" arises from some kind of media stereotype that says Asian women are submissive...? --Hontogaichiban 00:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I merged it. This article was getting too long anyways. Logoi 08:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms -> Reactions

It seems that the POV and original research in this article are starting to get out of hand. I've renamed the criticisms section to "Reactions" which will hopefully open it up to a wider range of sources and opinions, including several works of literature by Asian American women that I have in mind, but don't have at the moment.

That said, I've also removed three of the more outrageous "criticisms" in the section:

"Exogamy": As said previously, this is a means of pronoting interracial marriage on a genetic basis, and so does not deal with Asian fetish at all, but solely with Asian American interracial marriage. The section could belong there, but first that article would have to exist.

"Vagueness": First of all, the concept of fetishism lies within pscyhoanalysis. There is no scientific or medical basis at all for psychoanalysis, and moreover, fetishism is not an accepted concept outside the psychoanalytic community. Insisting on scientific evidence is an argument against fetishism in general, not of Asian fetish in particular. Secondly, the difference between Asian fetish and a normal interracial relationship is the dfiference between "abnormal" and "normal." This is made clear at the beginning of the article. Now, if someone wanted to believe that all interracial relationships are abnormal, that would be within his or her right to freedom of speec, but that wouldn't be placed on Wikipedia either.

"Hypocrisy": As I said earlier, there is a difference between an opinion sourced by an article and an opinion aobut an article. The former is acceptable and encouraged, but the latter amounts to adding one's own original opinion and thus constitutes a violation of WP:NOR. This paragraph amounts to the latter.

All in all, this article does seem to be getting better, although several editors are starting to become uncivil and making personal attacks. Big no-no as far as etiquette goes here. --Wzhao553 01:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You may want to double-check, but I believe your edit(s) was/were reverted, as you didn't give any indication why you removing said content in your edit summary. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 01:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand your arguments about vagueness. However, "Asian fetish" is not a term used by psychoanalysts, it's clearly slang (i.e. it's defined in urbandictionary.com not Websters.) I'm reverting the vagueness section. Logoi 03:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's cool, I forgot to sign in too. --Wzhao553 01:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism is different than reactions. If you User:Wzhao553 plan to put more pieces of support for the issue go ahead, but that is not the same thing as criticism. Make a new section for supporting pieces.--Dark Tichondrias 03:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The exogamy argument should be in this article because it is a criticism of the Asian fetish. It implies that people are subconciously driven to mate with a genetically disimalar people, justifying Asian outmarriage to non-Asians without having the concept of the Asian fetish needed.

The Asian fetish is not "psychoanalysis", but about a vague accusation of people having a presupposed racist attraction to Asian women. The Asian fetish is not discussed by credible pyschologists. It is only about interracial relationships. It a vague accusation that someone's interracial relationship is "abnormal" to quote User:Wzhao553.

The hypocrisy section is a report on Goldsea which is not an opinion about the source. Goldsea actually believes it is fighting racism against Asian women by celebrating objectification of White women. It is particularly trying to offset the perceived fetishization of Asian women. Their solution is just one way to fight against Asian fetishism.---Dark Tichondrias 04:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Dark Tichondrias makes several good points, but they are all somewhat misguided and beside the point. First, if the exogamy section can be linked to a criticism of Asian fetish, then it should by all means stay. This need not be a complex link, but it does need at bare minimum a reliable source that discusses both in the same context. If such a source can be found, then we should add it promptly.

Fetishism is part of psychoanalytic theory, which is a literary theory as well. This is why academics like Homi Bhabha and David L. Eng who discuss it are literature professors and not psychologists. The definition can be found in many reliable sources, which all agree with one another. If you feel strongly that the definition is vague, then it is up to you to find reliable sources which describe it as such. --Wzhao553 08:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wzhao553: those guys you talk about are so out there that to claim this is found in reliable sources is ludicrous. (I'm not aware of anyone considering a post-colonial theorist a reliable source on anything except perhaps post-colonial theory.) The article racial fetish (which you edited) states: "Homi Bhabha defined the idea of a racial fetish in contrast to the idea of the Freudian sexual fetish which he describes a denial of difference, where the male sees the female as a castrated male, seeing missing parts rather than a different anatomy. Similar to Freud's idea of a fetish, Bhabha defines racial fetish to be a fixation on other races being not different, but lesser or "mutilated" versions of the white male."

If you are going to use a specialized academic definition of racial or sexual fetish (and I'm still not sure if this is what you are arguing) at least lets bring it out into the open so we can discuss it. You are saying something is clear when almost everyone will disagree; all this does is strengthen the claim that there is no consensus as to the definition of "fetish" let alone "asian fetish."

Regardless of whether the word "fetish" is well defined, "asian fetish" is not. It seems like you are arguing with the criticisms and trying to inject your own views into the article. Read the articles in the references and links starting with the first one: they contain these criticisms. I see your removal of this material as trying to suppress legitimate criticism, silence viewpoints that are well-documented and therefore not NPOV. Logoi 09:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Logoi, let's compromise. Let's let the "Vagueness" section stay, but there's also no reason not to include a section on the academic, psychoanalytic discussions of Asian fetish, which would contain more specific definitions. We can place this in a separate article such as Asian fetish and psychoanalysis (due to the technical details), but we can place a summary paragraph in this article as well. However, it will take a few weeks to gather up all the sources needed to write that entry. Hopefully that won't be a problem here. --Wzhao553 14:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The point about the exogamy section (which was re-written yesterday) is that it raises the question as to whether "Asian fetish" is a fetish (unhealthy) or something else. It provides a scientific argument which challenges the validity of the concept of "Asian fetish" - though personally I can see both sides of the argument, it should be here though.--Hontogaichiban 18:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This is tangled issue since on the one hand, there is the desire which can be healthy or unhealthy, and on the other hand, there is the mating which can be healthy or unhealthy. No one can question that exogamy is a healthy form of mating. And both sides seem to agree that desire is healthy when it promotes healthy outcomes.

Tradeoffs on the one hand there is the healthy mating, on the other hand there is the potential for damage due to stereotyping.

Also, on the one hand there is preserving cultural identity through endogamy, and on the other is the giving of good health to offspring.

The debate centers around how to weigh these tradeoffs. Some Asian American groups give more weight to the damage of stereotyping and to preserving their group identity than to the risks to the health of their children.

Let's get some sources who say this and flesh this all out.Logoi 20:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you talk about those two things as if they are equal. The benefits of aim for healthy offspring are totally undeniable, its the only reason we have evolved and are still here in the first place. As for "preserving their group identity", on this side of the atlantic we call that racism! This is a bit like the Evolution/Creationism arguement, one is undoubted scientific fact, the other is total pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo designed to further the agenda of some pretty deluded individuals. Additonally, the sources are all there!--Hontogaichiban 22:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The only thing that needs to be added is references specifically for these arguments (i.e. someone who makes similar arguments in this context).

Removal of 'Solutions' section

The quote is too short and doesn't support what was read into it, although I haven't looked at the whole goldsea site. The movie is actually correct in portraying Asian men in Asia like this. It happens to be a matter of fact that should probably go into this article (under American bias) that in parts of Asia, Western white women become courtesans/bar hostesses/entertainers and are sought after by Asian men there for their race and racial attributes that are thought to be attractive (like white skin, height, larger breasts etc.). I'm not aware of a negative label for them doing this. (Trivial point in case it's reverted: The movie reference should have been to Rising Sun). It is also fairly clear that some people are using the label "asian fetish" to discourage interracial relationships in order to empower Asian men in America. I think there should be a section on the politics of this term. Logoi 08:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be a fair addition, so long as it is pointed out that white men feel that it is also fairly clear that some people are using the label to discourage interracial relationships. (Out of all the times that I have seen this criticisms, I do not believe I have ever seen it come from someone who is not a white male.) Discussing the politics is fair, but using the white male viewpoint without disclaimer and as some default case is also clearly a violation of WP:BIAS and WP:NPOV#Anglo American focus. --Wzhao553 09:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. We should identify which groups are making which claims. Logoi 09:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Unlike the many Asian fetish advocacy websites run by Asians, I have not found an Asian fetish criticism website run by White males which would support User:Wzhao553's assertion that the dicouragement of interracial relationship criticism has been an argument pushed by only White males. User:Wzhao553 feels from his/her own personal experiences it is a "white men" viewpoint. If the dicouragement criticism were added, it could not include User:Wzhao553's assertion because it is his/her original research.---Dark Tichondrias 19:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

New Section on Criticism of Chin and Chan

Dark Tichondrias, you did a good job of clarifying this section, but now that it's clarified, it seems like the entirety of the Chin and Chan discussion belongs on the page racist love. The origins of the term should be limited to citing it's first uses which is done at the end of the section, with an brief one-line explanation of racist love after the quote which uses it linking to the racist love page. Logoi 01:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Interracial relationships revisited

I can't stress enough that the subject of Asian fetish is not about interracial relationships, nor should it be about interracial relationships. It is a term to describe a certain type of sexual attraction.

But yes, it has certainly been used to attack interracial relationships. However, defending interracial relationships is not a criticism of term Asian fetish. What should be mentioned is its usage and how the term is offensive to some people.

A lot of the editors of this article is missing a very important point - that a criticism of the negative connotations of this article needs to concentrate on that some people consider it perfectly normal and healthy to have a sexual attraction specifically for Asian people. That would be a real criticism and a real opposing view.

The Exagomy section is especially off topic as it doesn't even deal specifically with Asian people. Some editors may think that Asian fetish is about interracial relationships involving Asian people, but the section deals with interracial relationships involving people of any races. It doesn't even defend interracial relationships with Asian people, it defends relationshiops involving any two people not of the same race, regardless of what races.

Hong Qi Gong 17:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Before you delete exogamy section again, note it is about asian people now.--Hontogaichiban 22:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hong Qi Gong there is enough stuff about interrattial relationships in the article so that the tag at the top that it is NOT about interracial relationships is confusing. Maybe say that somewhere in the article. I agree about exogamy though, there should be at most one sentence about it in a racial separatist section if anyone ever makes one. Logoi 20:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

How is it just my opinion? "Asian fetish" is used to describe a type of sexual attraction. Plain and simple. No, I don't think we should remove everything that has to do with interracial relationships. It should be mentioned that it's usage to label people is offensive, especially people in interracial relationships. But a real criticism of the negative connotation of "Asian fetish" needs to concentrate on how it is actually healthy and normal to be sexually attracted especially to Asian people. Hong Qi Gong 20:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

agreed.Logoi 21:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Why "asian fetish" is slang

It is used in a specialized way by a certain group or groups of people. It is not part of standard English, or medical or other jargon. "Asian" is not merely an adjective describing fetish, (or a specific type of fetish like a foot fetish) since "fetish" is not being used in its usual scientific sense to describe an object or body part. I'm unclear why there is a debate about this. Logoi 19:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Asian fetish is NOT slang. It does not appear in the dictionary because it is two words. It is no more slang than the terms "oral fixation", "large camel", or "red apple". It isn't used in a specialized way by certain groups of people. It is intelligible to anyone who understands what the words Asian and fetish mean. Your example of a two worded slang, "wiked good" is slang because it is gramatically incorrect, and "wicked" in this case means "very" or "extremely" rather than what it would mean alone, "evil". Compared to Asian fetish, "Asian" means in this case... "Asian", and fetish means "fetish"! How is it slang?!Bethereds 20:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Bethereds you say It isn't used in a specialized way by certain groups of people. which ignores that is being used (in its non-porn/alcohol context) currently only by a small group of Asian Americans possibly to enhance their group cohesion. If you look at the ethnicity of nearly all of the primary sources in the references for this term, you will see that this is the case. You yourself have made edits to this effect.

You also say It is intelligible to anyone who understands what the words Asian and fetish mean This is also not the case. Would an average person know that it referred to "attraction to stereotypes of Asians, esp. asian women"? Would they know it was even referring to the colloquial use of "fetish" qua sexual fetish as opposed to a fetish (man-made object with magical powers)? Marxists and postcolonialists would have still a different take on the word fetish--see Wzhao's article racial fetish or scroll up to his discussion of this. For some people "asian fetish pornography" (three words, which I'm sure you would maintain are all well defined) means Japanese women tied up with ropes and flogged, and is therefore used in marketing these materials. This so-called fetish is not a precise thing you can point to like a camel or an apple (oral fixation is not slang mainly because it is Freudian jargon). Also, some people argue that Asian in this context only means East and Southeast Asian, and fetish means strong attraction. This is in part why there is no consensus about the meaning of these two words compounded together. If you look at the official/unofficial internet source for slang, urbandictionary.com you will find several definitions of asian fetish, some with more thumbs up than others. If you look in a really big dictionary under "fetish" the word asian doesn't appear, nor does it appear in jargon dictionaries or medical/psychological works under "fetish."

Regardless of whether you are right or wrong about this, I think we can agree that it is informal, non-standard and not jargon. I think we can also agree that it originates from a particular ethnic subculture. Hence, I'm not sure why you are claiming it's not slang. In your future posts, perhaps you could elaborate under which criteria you believe it is not slang. I enjoy debating words, and thank you for continuing to dispute these points. Logoi 21:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Taken from slang. Yes, I know wikipedia isn't a good source for proving or disproving anything, but this paragraph pretty much sums up what slang is.

Slang necessarily involves deviation from standard language, and tends to be very popular among adolescents. To one degree or another, however, it is used in all sectors of society. Although slang does not necessarily involve neologisms (some slang expressions, such as quid, are very old), it often involves the creation of new linguistic forms or the creative adaptation of old ones. It can even involve the creation of a secret language understood only by those within a particular group (an antilanguage). As such, slang frequently forms a kind of sociolect aimed at excluding certain people from the conversation. Slang words tend to function initially as a means of encryption, so that the non-initiate cannot understand the conversation. The use of slang is a means of recognizing members of the same group, and to differentiate that group from society at large. In addition to this, slang can be used and created purely for humorous or expressive effect.

You're really digging deep to suggest it is slang. One can diferentiate from the different meanings of "Asian" and "Fetish" based on context. Your argument is terribly weak!Bethereds 22:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You say my arguments are weak, but you haven't challenged any of them. You haven't even analyzed how it is not slang by the definition; whereas I've shown it is. The stuff you highlight says in effect "sometimes slang is like this." Are you throwing in the towel so soon? Logoi 23:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems like you're not even reading what I did there. The criteria that I find to be most important to deem something as slang are highlighted. You claim that the multiple definitions of the two words which make up the phrase "Asian" and "fetish" are ambiguous to the point that it would not be universally intelligible, this is wrong because it can be gathered from context. You also claim that it is a term used and understood exclusively by a small group of Asian-American men, whereas this is not the case. Asian women, White Men, multiracial men, and probably people who aren't Asian men have used the term while editing this page. My own mother knows exactly what it means and the first time she'd ever heard of it was today. I don't understand what is so non-standard about it. It's two seperate words, both of which are standard, even when coupled together. I am also convinced at this point that you really only enjoy arguing, or getting people to argue with you by adding ridiculous things to the article like "kawaii" for example. You arguments are still weak and I have addressed them all. Thank you.Bethereds 04:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"Authority on subject"

For God's sake. That section was completely POV, and the only source cited actually says the reverse of what that section was saying[14]. The article had two women authors saying how disgusting Asian fetish is. Seriously, do some of you actually read the sources before you use it??? Hong Qi Gong 19:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That's because the article was written by User:Dark Tichondrias. HongQiGong, we need to join forces and show the truth. 71.124.114.26 21:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't care for "joining forces" or "showing the truth". I only want to make the article NPOV and the opposing points of view actually on topic instead of being completely illogical. Hong Qi Gong 21:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This link is not really applicable anywhere on the article, but for the benefit of many of the editors, here is a blogring of mostly Asian women who oppose Asian fetish. It shows that plenty of Asian women oppose Asian fetish, contrary to what the deleted section was trying to claim.

http://www.xanga.com/groups/group.aspx?id=688190

Hong Qi Gong 21:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

good point. I think the consensus is that some hate it, some think it's annoying but don't hate it, some think it's benign but don't like it, and some enjoy the attention, or exploiting males who have it. Of course, we don't have hard numbers on this. I think there is also the group dynamic of it, where even if the female/male in question doesn't mind, it may be unacceptable among her/hisfriends and family. Logoi 22:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, many of the participating editors feel that the term is an attack on interracial relationships, and this has unnecessarily polarised the editors into two groups. The existence of Asian fetish is pretty much unrefutable, as seen from the sexual stereotyping of Asian women, Otaku culture, the disproportional amount of Asian porn available in the US where only 4% of the population is Asian, etc etc. Whether or not this trend is healthy is obviously debatable. But if someone is offended at the use of the term or disagrees with its negative implications, then he or she should contribute to sections about how it is perfectly healthy to have a sexual preference for Asian people. That would be a real and logical opposing point of view. Interracial relationships are not under attack here, or at least, that's certainly not MY purpose for editing the article. Like I said, I'm in an interracial relationship myself. Hong Qi Gong 22:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The existance of a large amount of Asian porn does not equate to the existance of an Asian fetish. If we separate the Asian porn made in America from the porn made in Japan by Japanese the number of Asian porn shrinks. Furthermore, if we remove the porn from Americans going to Southeast Asia the number also shrinks. The porn actually made in America featuring Asian women is actually not disproportionately numerous. If we assume that Asian and non-Asian men feel compelled to have an equal amount of social identities featured in porn, they would have to have their Asian porn archive equal all other categories, establishing that they were not racist. This places financial incentive on the numerically small Asian American population to enter the porn industry. If Asian American pornography is numerous like User:HongQiGong claims, it does not imply the existance of the Asian fetish and could imply that many Americans have taken the ideal of equality to heart.--Dark Tichondrias 23:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you mostly. I'm not sure if it's used directly to discourage interracial relationships, but it is certainly used to create a climate that is hostile to them. For example, the Harvard Crimson article in the references reports that it is a spectre that lurks over an interracial relationship. The burden of proof somehow shifts to the people in the relationship to justify that it was not a relationship born of an Asian fetish. It is part of the fabric of malicious gossip that lurks like a cloud around people in relationships, as in "I can't believe she's dating him, he dated another asian girI, I bet he's got an asian fetish...eww." It causes well-meaning people in interracial relationships to question their own motivations and general sanity (see the salon.com advice column in the references). And, to the people in a relationship, there is always the dim threat of racially motivated attacks, or being yelled at or given dirty looks, or getting crappy service at a restaurant etc., and movies like "yellow fever" that ask "why are all the white guys taking our girls" don't help allay this feeling. The general feeling of society on both sides of the racial divide is to be uneasy about these relationships, and this is just another word that is used to impugn the characters of people in these relationships, a racial slur if you will. In this sense, it is an attack--a personal attack on the validity of their feelings, and therefore an attack on their feelings for each other. It is like saying to a couple, "your relationship is a joke, that guy/girl only likes you for your racial characteristics. He/she is an asian fetishist." To say that it is indisputable is only to say that there are people (both men and women) who will exclusively have attractions to members of Asian ethnic groups (no one can disagree that such people exist); I don't know of a single instance where someone was actually attracted to a stereotype although I think most non-Asians have illusions about asian people and may cite these illusions as reasons for intially liking them, when the real reason is probably something shallow like "she/he was hot."

I don't think the same thing is true for most mail-order brides however. I don't think people who buy mail-order brides would even mind it if you said they had an asian fetish, although they may try to justify that it has since turned into real love.

There are of course other contexts when it doesn't mean this at all, like in the context of sexual harassment, in which case it's an attack on the motivations for sexual harassment, which I think we can agree is a good thing. The Princeton case is cited a lot, but it's not clear to me that he wasn't just crazy, and based on his behavior, can we be sure he actually liked asian women? My theory is that he didn't like them at all. Likewise with that weird guy in the Northwest who learned about bondage in Japan and started that S&M community--do these guys really like women? Not clear to me. In dealing with these murky matters of the mind and heart, especially other people's subjective mental states, there is no way to ever be sure.

I'm not aware that there is a disproportionate amount of Asian porn. From what I understand, Japanese porn is imported not necessarily for its asian-ness but for certain kinks.Logoi 23:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In response to User:Dark Tichondrias. It is not the mere existance of Asian porn in the United States that shows there is an Asian fetish. Rather, it is the way it is marketed. For example saying things like, "Exotic Asian jewels from the Far East..." and things of that nature. 71.124.114.26 06:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Stereotypes in Asian porn are like catch phrases in marketing, but they do not mean that the pornsite creators had an Asian fetish. Marketing campaigns frequently incorporate catchy phrases which they think will boost sales of their products. Taco bell has recently had the catch phrase "I'm full!" while Burger King has used "Have it your way." Their hope is that these positive descriptions of their product will increase demand. Similarly, pornsites market their product. Catch phrases such as "Exotic Asian jewels from the Far East" are written by the pornsite creators to deliberately boost membership, stimulating demand for their product. This neither means that the pornsite creators had an Asian fetish when they wrote the phrase nor does it mean the members will get an Asian fetish from hearing it.--Dark Tichondrias 17:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Dark T., that only proves that the Asian fetish is more prevalent. Everyone keeps saying that ads with Asian fetish element don't cause Asian fetish, which may or may not be true, but the fact of the matter is that they play on an existing condition within the minds of buyers of porn, not the makers or distributors of it. People with an Asian fetish then would most likely want to buy porn with Asian actors in it. The way that so much Asian porn proves that there is an Asian fetish is because it is so marketable due to this widespread existing condition or attitude of the people who buy or watch it. Fetish based ads with stereotypical depictions in them would not exist if porn buyers didn't have an Asian fetish to begin with.Bethereds 19:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Bethereds is using the formal logical fallacy of affirming the consequent to prove the existance of the Asian fetish. The whole point of User:HongQiGong adding Asian porn statistics was to prove that the Asian fetish exists. User:Bethereds claims that if there existed an Asian fetish, then large amount of Asian porn and its stereotypical portayals would satiete it. User:Bethereds asserts that since large amounts of Asian porn exist with stereotypes, so his/her conclusion is that the Asian fetish does exist. This is a formal logical fallacy called affirming the consequent, so User:Bethereds has not proven the existance of the Asian fetish.--Dark Tichondrias 20:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that isn't what I said at all. I didn't say that the porn would satiate the Asian fetish, I was simply saying that it is there because there is a demand for it. This demand for Asian porn is what I used to prove that an Asian fetish exists. Previous editors criticize Hwang's argument by saying that ads and porn don't cause Asian fetishes. That isn't what Hwang was saying, he was saying there is a demand. This demand, in and of itself, proves that there is an Asian fetish. Or at least a strong demand amongst non-Asian men to see porn featuring Asian women... which is a... fetish.. for Asian women.Bethereds 00:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is your the first part of your argument which is a hypothetical syllogism, so it has a valid logical form.

• Premise 1:If the Asian fetish exists, then there would be a lot of Asian porn.
• Premise 2:If there is a lot of Asian porn, then there would be a lot of demand for Asian porn.

---

• Conclusion 1:If the Asian fetish exists, then there is a lot of demand for Asian porn.

Here is your argument which involves the logical fallacy affirming the consequent, so it has an invalid logical form:

• Premise 1:If the Asian fetish exists, then there would be a lot of demand for Asian porn. (If P, then Q)
• Premise 2: There is a lot of demand for Asian porn. (Q)

---

• Conclusion 2:The Asian fetish does exist. (Therefore P)

Because your second argument has the invalid logical form of affirming the consequent, it neither proves nor disproves the existance of the Asian fetish.--Dark Tichondrias 01:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sound reasoning Dark Tichondrias; very nicely laid out. Intuitively, if Hwang's argument is as Bethereds says, then it is bankrupt since the presence of marketing slogans doesn't mean people consume the stuff for that reason ( or they may consume it in spite of that reason), and it would be wrong to assume that someone who watches an asian movie (not necessarily just a pornographic one) enjoys it only because they are attracted to stereotypical asian behavior or even to asians (as opposed to just beautiful or charismatic stars). Just out of curiousity, do asian americans consume asian pornography? And, if so, do they find that the actresses/actors are able to act sufficiently well that they can portray stereotypes of asians? And if so, do they, the observers seek out these stereotypes? Logoi 04:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit, you got me on that one. Doesn't prove anything logically. However it certainly is convievable that it's at least possible.  :) Bethereds 06:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Use of Yale Daily News article.

For those who want to use the article as a reference. Will you please actually read the article first? It keeps getting used incorrectly to say that Asian women think Asian fetish is benign. Firstly the title says that it is "less than benign". Secondly, if you actually read the article, you'll realise that it was written by two women talking about how sex crimes against Asian women are caused by Asian fetish. What the article claims is the exact opposite of the comments that's trying to use it as a source.

http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=29233

So please. Read the sources before you actually use it... <<rolling my eyes>> Hong Qi Gong 15:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hong Qi Gong good point. It's not the best article for it, but it does seem to be a call to arms to women who do see it as essentially benign i.e. the authors note that other women may see it as benign, and the authors want them to stop doing this. Probably another article should be cited for the proposition as well. As for the authority of the Yale Daily News, it is claimed to be the oldest college daily newspaper, and has an impressive list of alumni. It should be considered a reliable source with respect to articles written by reporters who work for the Yale daily news. However, this piece is written by members of an asian american women's organization, ostensibly reporting on their recent meeting, but actually editorializing the issue under the guise of reporting what was said at the meeting. While no one would dispute that these things were said at the meeting, the reliability of the things said have about the same reliability as a website for this organization. Logoi 17:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That is precisely why opposing POVs are offered throughout the entire article. There is no such thing as an entirely unbias source of information.

Plus, it is a bit contradictory of you to first say that Yale Daily News is a credible source, but then single out one particular article as questionable. If one article at that newspaper may be questionable, then arguably a number of their articles could also be questionable, thereby making the newspaper not at all credible. I'm certain this is hardly the one and only article at the newspaper that was written by members of organizations with specific social and/or political agendas. Does that actually make Yale Daily News not credible, then? Hong Qi Gong 06:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understood what I said, and I didn't understand what you said, but it doesn't matter. Here is some more objective grist from YDN for your mill: af1, af2,af3, af4, af5, af6, af7, rumpus1 (for reference) rumpus2 (for background) Logoi 16:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

More on the Authority on the Subject section

The Gene Expression source does not claim that Asian men or East Asian men are the least authoratative on the subject, whereas Asian women are the best authority on the subject. It only claims that East Asian men are biased. Hong Qi Gong 15:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually forget it. I've deleted the Gene Expression reference in the section. I can't even find where it says that East Asian men are biased on the subject. It only claims that the creation of "angry" politically-minded East Asian men are partly due to the dating disparity. Another source incorrectly used. Hong Qi Gong 15:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I added this citation to the racism criticism, but changed "biased" to "misattributed", because the source feels East Asian American have attributed racism incorrectly to the dating disparity. This correctly characterizes the source.--Dark Tichondrias 16:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

What the Gene Expression blog entry says

The Gene Expression blog entry does not say that East Asian men "misattribute" the dating disparity to white racism. All it claims is that the dating disparity is one of the reasons why East Asian men lean to the left politically and that the dating disparity is attributed by East Asian men to racism. Not "misattributed". Also, it does not claim that East Asian men who do this are themselves racist.

Please read the sources before you actually use them. Hong Qi Gong 16:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss the Gene Expression blog entry before adding it. I don't think it is relevant in the way it was added because:

1. The blog entry does not even talk about Asian fetish. It does, however, partly talk about the interracial dating disparity.
2. It is an article about why Asian American people lean to the left politically.
3. It does not say that Asian American Studies are dishonest, nor does it say that East Asian men misattribute the dating disparity issue to racism. The writer himself claims that the racism explanation of the dating disparity is not "entirely invalid", but that he finds another explanation more convincing.
4. It does not claim either Asian American Studies department or East Asian men to be racist for attributing the interracial dating disparity to racism.

Hong Qi Gong 17:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

ROFL Gene Expression is nothing but sexually repressed racist nerds Heaven's knight 18:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not only Asian men who criticise Asian fetish

There seems to be a prevailing attitude amongst opponents of the usage of the term Asian fetish that it's only Asian men who are complaining about Asian fetish, and only as a way to discourage interracial dating amongst Asian women. I can't stress enough how incorrect this is. And why shouldn't they be? They are being racially and sexually objectified. From my personal life I have known plenty of Asian women who are against it. But you shouldn't have to take my word for it. If I spent time on it, I could probably find even more sources. But of those that are already available in this article, we see that there are Asian women who are not only against it, but are vocal about it.

http://news.asianweek.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=91a5d8dc1e036213372b22d3b3759a34&this_category_id=169

http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=29233

http://www.xanga.com/groups/group.aspx?id=688190

• Get off it! It is really not attractive when you tell an Asian girl that you have a "thing" for them. We want to know that you think we're hot as individuals and not cuz you have a "THING" for us. We don't want to be a dating trend. We're not exotic little sex kittens so stop! It is so sickening..

And again, I also stress that this is not an attack on interracial relationships. But in your editing of the article, please be aware and in consideration that it's not only Asian men who are against Asian fetish. Hong Qi Gong 21:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a non-issue since no one is saying it _is_ only asian men. But I agree that to the extent anyone claims that, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.Logoi 21:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

These men actually do have a "thing" for them strictly as individuals even if their general preference is Asian women, but this "thing" is not a fetish. A general preference for Asian females would discriminate between attractive Asian females and unattractive Asian females. Some people prefer Asian women in general, but would only have a "thing" for the attractive ones. This is not a fetish, but the sum of mutliple points of evaluation, possibly comprising facial structure, skin tone, make-up, etc. A general preference for a group of people would play into this list of factors, but is not the exclusive factor. In this context, "thing" is synonymous with individual enamoration. If she wants to know that "you think we are hot as individuals", she should ask her partner not to speak in ambiguous terms.--Dark Tichondrias 23:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, apparently there are Asian American girls and women that disagree with your evaluation. Hong Qi Gong 05:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't an evaluation, that was a recommendation for them to look deeper and see if their assumptions are actually warranted. Logoi 00:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why the page was moved

The article never claims it is scientific fact in the first place. If we are to name everything as a "theory" when it's not proven, then we'd have a lot of wiki articles to rename. Hong Qi Gong 05:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:HongQiGong on this point. If it is not proven, then it is not a theory. It is a hypothesis.--Dark Tichondrias 04:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. Just please discuss it before you rename it again. Otherwise, I will just rename it back. You can't just rename an article that is so heavily debated without concensus. People will just be renaming it back. Hong Qi Gong 16:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, another very important point - the term that is used is called "Asian fetish", not "Asian fetish hypothesis" or "Asian fetish theory". That is why the article should be called "Asian fetish". There is no rule or precedence to say that anything that is not scientific fact should be called X Theory or X Hypothesis in the naming of the articles. Hong Qi Gong 17:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The hypothesis is that the attraction is to stereotypes, i.e. not to a person, but to their race or perceptions about their culture, and that somehow this is a mental pathology of the person who feels this attraction. This is the thing that is strictly psychological and that hasn't been proven to exist, and this is where all the controversy is. Logoi 00:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The article never claims it is scientific fact, just like Racism or Sexism, or any number of sociological topics which also do not claim it is scientific fact. Should Racism be moved to Racism theory or Theory of racism? The body of the content specifically mentions that this is not a psychologically studied subject. I mean, forget about Racism and Sexism. How about Martian? If we are to start renaming articles to X Theory or X Hypothesis, then we'd have a whole lot of articles to rename in wiki. There is no policy for it, and there is no precedence to it. The justification for renaming is completely unfounded especially since, like I said, the term in question here is "Asian fetish", not "Asian fetish theory" or "Asian fetish hypothesis". Hong Qi Gong 00:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Martian is indeed an analogous article. The first sentence of the article reads: "The word Martian is a hypothetical native inhabitant of the planet Mars." The term is used more widely than what we can be called the "asian fetish hypothesis"--the hypothesis that people are attracted to asians due to racial stereotypes, as opposed to say, their beauty. As long as we label the hypothesis as a hypothesis, there's no problem.Logoi 04:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverted to previous introduction

I've reverted the introductory first paragraphs to an older version. The version that was there was simply terrible. You can't start an article by talking about how it doesn't exist when you haven't even defined it yet. You need to start an article with a definition of the subject matter. And the disagreements on the subject are thoroughly covered in the body of the article. Hong Qi Gong 05:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You have reverted the page back without any arguments for your actions. I've reverted to Asian fetish hypothesis because your reason that the version is "terrible" is not an argument, but a personal feeling. Your other reason that "you can'start an article about how it doesn't exist" is not an argument, but a mere point of view statement. --Dark Tichondrias 19:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually that is precisely my argument. What was your argument for adding it in the first place? And why isn't it also "not an argument, but a mere point of view"? Hong Qi Gong 20:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If anyone was actually here to read this article back when it came online last year, you'd have read an article about racist stereotyping and the ways in which it shaped perceptions of those of Asian ethnicity. As it stands, this article has completely deviated from its original intent, largely due to the workings of determined (Personal attack removed) who are trying to steer the topic away from racism and towards bullshit speculations about inner psychology. Asian fetish, the exotification of the "Orient," is a socio-cultural condition like racism and white privilege, not psychoanalytic speculation. Only on wikipedia where the (Personal attack removed) rule can someone accuse a concept so well rooted in conventional paradigms of historigraphic critique--ie Edward Said's Orientalism--or being non-existent because of the lack of study on the part of cilinical psychologists. I say revert this article to the way it was several months ago, when it actually addressed issues of race and racism, rather than this fragmented, incoherent nonsense that contradicts itself at every turn. And then make moves to ban these disruptive (Personal attack removed). And then marginalize them to the point of irrelevance. You guys are not doing anything constructive renging on the very basic principles upon which this article was revised in the first place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.22.218.180 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-01 20:06:41.

I removed personal attacks directed at me in accordance with Wkipedia's policy Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks

User:75.22.218.180 Wikipedia's policy Wikipedia:Civility recomends not calling for the blocking of other users, because it tears down the civil relations we have with each other.--Dark Tichondrias 20:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's really not our place to ignore how the term "asian fetish" is being used if we are going to be encyclopedic about it. Your opinion is that the behavior that is given the label "Asian fetish" is just racism, which in your opinion is just a socio-cultural condition. Other people use it differently and make different arguments. There is no consensus. Ultimately though, you are correct: the whole asian fetish hypothesis is "fragmented incoherent nonsense that contradicts itself at every turn." This is just how it is. Logoi 05:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Calling a section "terrible" like User:HongQiGong did and then removing it, is not an argument like he claims, so he should find an argument to remove the section. The accusation that the section was "terrible" would be an argument if it also said why it was terrible.--Dark Tichondrias 04:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

If you would read past the first two sentences you would know that he gave his reason for why it was terrible.Bethereds 14:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the intro because the intro was simply a bad one. I read half of it and then was still wondering when it was going to define "Asian fetish". It was ambiguous and unclear. I am absolutely open to having content that discuss how it is not a scientifically defined term, but putting that much amount of content about it right in the beginning of the intro without first even defining what it refers to is just simply bad form. Read the more popular articles on wiki on subjects that are not scientific fact. How many of them start out by discussing the disagreements on them without first defining it? No offense, but it was simply ridiculous. Look at Racism, Sexism, Big Bang, Evolution. None of them start out by discussing the disagreements and how they are not scientific fact. Hong Qi Gong 17:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Certain articles are not labeled as hypothesis because they are accepted as fact. People do not doubt that racism or sexism exist. The Big Bang and Evolution have scientific backing. On the other hand, the Asian fetish has no scientific backing, so it should be labeled as a hypothesis to distinguish it from established truths.--Dark Tichondrias 19:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful about what is established and what isn't. It's well established that certain people have a very particular attraction to asians or sometimes to specific subgroups. The first sentence of the article is neutral as to why they are attracted, so I think just this much is not in controversy. Once we start getting into why they are attracted, then it's totally not well-established, and completely unstudied. Any attempt to explain why they are attracted is just a hypothesis. Like the hypothesis that for some people it's due to racial stereotypes (are Asians so unattractive that the only way to explain attraction to them is by being deluded with positive stereotypes?) . And, I agrree this hypothesis does not have the currency and weight of racism and sexism which have both been extensively studied. Logoi 04:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Characterization of Supporters and Opposers

Listen. There are racist loser nerds out there with no lives who will go to great lengths to justify their masturbatory fantasies. Wiki has no police. There is no sense in conversing with dorky racist white boys and their fellow societal rejects; it only gives losers an opportunity to air their foolishness. They are biased and will not accept truth and logic but instead use this media and forum as nothing but an opportunity to cry about their place in society and shout down their psychological specters. Of course, they are unsympathetic to the minority cause because they themselves are mediocre and begrudge the seemingly charitable and unfair spirit of minority advancement - "I'm a loser according to mainstream society and so [they believe] are you, *sniff* we are losers it's what we are we don't deserve help" ROFL

I understand this is an unpleasant psychological outlook for them but I can hardly sympathize when they are their ilk make themselves my enemies, hehehe Heaven's knight 18:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I forgot to mention, not only is the spirit of minority advancement seemingly unfair and overly charitable, but it also seems pointless and its goals unrealistic and impractical - after all, if minorities are born losers just like them, what is the point of changing the environment, being overly nice? Those minorities will still be crappy reject flaws somehow! ("I'm a white nerd, if given a million dollars I'd still be a white nerd!" And they'd be correct. ROFL)

These mediocre racists will not conceive of anything other than being inherently crappy as a reason for societal disfavor - for that is what they themselves are. As a matter of course, there will be those who desire to survive psychologically by adopting scapegoats they can feel better than Heaven's knight 18:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Both the supporters and opposers to the Asian fetish's existance have diverse reasons and backgrounds. The exact characterization of the poeple who oppose the Asian fetish's existance are not easily determinable, since they have been shown to come from a variety of socio-economic factors. Their reasons for not believing the Asian fetish exists are also diverse, preventing them from being attributed to one point of view. This diversity also applies to those who support the Asian fetish's existance.--Dark Tichondrias 19:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As a cocktail, a band, and a magazine

I've created and referenced Asian fetish (disambiguation), and deleted the mention of the cocktail, the band, and the magazine from the article itself. Hong Qi Gong 06:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing the reference to the cocktail is obvious - it had nothing to do with the subject matter itself. I removed the reference to the band and the magazine because one band and one magazine hardly means that Asian Americans are now using the term to showcase their creativity, as stated by the now-removed sentence. It just means that magazine and that band has used the term to showcase their creativity. Hong Qi Gong 07:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Asian fetish/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This is definitely one of the hot topics in the Asian American community. Although it had a lot of information, much of it is gone due to disputes. With good sources and consensus, the article should be fine. mirageinred 22:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 20:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)