Talk:Racial fetishism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Acjw35.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

terrible, biased article

are women not capable of fetishizing race? do other non-white races not fetishize race...? currently the entire article reads like a hate-piece on white men, no surprise there given the amount of feminist authors sourced. do better, wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.120.187.92 (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

chitchat

I think pages like this have no place here.Larquitte 21:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

What do other people think about this page? Enochlau 07:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

It should be kept for sheer humour value Kewpid 07:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The place for that is WP:BJODN :) I'll wait a little longer before starting an AfD. Enochlau 07:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous...sexual fantasies aren't necessarily sexual fetishes. Remove this article!

My only problem is that it is too much like a list. Richardkselby 22:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
This is merely a list of the marketing success of various pornography sites... and not a very accurate one at that. Adam

it is real, it isn't real

This list as it is is unverified, uncited and focuses on cultures in America. That said, sexual fetishism is very much real. People are harrassed by persons objectifying them according to sexual racial stereotypes. However, nobody says "interracial fetish"- this article made up that term. It isn't even about interracial sexuality at all, it's about the sex stereotyping of non-white races. In that way, this article doesn't make any sense and should be deleted. Lotusduck 00:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

all original research

All of this page is original research, and while I appreciate the keep decision as it relates to the validity of the topic, nobody contested the view that what is written in this article is without merit. Therefore, I don't believe removing all of this non-information is vandalism. Thank you. Lotusduck 20:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Please merge

the new information reference is about pornography, not fetishism specifically. We don't have sources that differentiate this article from the interracial fetish page, so why do we want this page to be separate from that? I tried to explain my creating that redirect, so please explain reverting back to the old article. Lotusduck 22:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little undecided on this. If sources can be found to define this term properly—the argument that there is interracial porn ergo there is an interracial fetish does not seem solid to me—I have no problem keeping this as a seperate article, although I think it would be better (if someone wants to do the work) to merge this, Ethnic stereotypes in pornography, Interracial pornography and possibly Interracial couple into one substantial high-quality article (perhaps Sexual attraction and ethnicity). If sources can't be found, this term probably doesn't really exist and merging seems fine. NicM 22:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC).

Well, what's the point in waiting around? The "reference" doesn't really refer to the non-information in the article. How long should we wait for some justification for this page? A week? A month? Five seconds? It's already been a while. Lotusduck 23:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

So soon after an AfD, give it at least a week. NicM 23:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC).

You may want to put a {{merge}} tag on the target too, or perhaps use {{mergefrom}} and {{mergeto}}. NicM 23:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC).

remove reference

I opened the reference and searched for the term "interracial fetish". Not used in that paper once. Therefore, while on a similar topic, that paper can't be a reliable reference for defining this term. Lotusduck 23:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Racial fetish

I'm renaming this to "Racial fetish", which is the scholarly term for the phenomenon. ""Epidermal fetish"" is an alternative (and the term used in the reference I added) but racial fetish (fetishism) is more common. The current title- interracial fetish- seems to be derived largely from the world of porn and thus does not really fit. -- JJay 00:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You think ethnic sexual stereotypes is such a different subject? Maybe you'd be better making a section there and then see if you can get enough material to make it its' own article later. Lotusduck 00:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You'll have better luck with "racial sexual fetish" although I'm pretty sure this is a non-term as well. The Asian fetish is actually called "Asian Sexual Fetish" because asians are sexually fetished- they are not objects like shoes are, so it gets a different term. That's my understanding of the term. Also, if you couldn't tell, I don't like this article being here ugly-ing up the place. If you said whatever you think needs to be said in a part of another article in section, then what you would do would be edited and other people would contribute as well. If you could lay out plans and sources for what kind of material should go here, then I could justify not making this a redirect. Otherwise I'll just have to make it a redirect rather than let a stub on an infrequently used or nonexistant term stay a stub forever. Lotusduck 14:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This article addresses a very serious topic. It has nothing to do with pornography. It should not be redirected. It needs to be expanded, hence the tag. "I don't like this article being here ugly-ing up the place"- I have no idea what you mean. Perhaps you could be more specific? -- JJay 17:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The term racial fetish isn't a term in real currency. No hits on lexis nexis, no hits on an article search from American Psychological Association articles search. This being here uglies up the place by making people think they can infer or invent terms for anything they think about instead of doing the research. The term racial fetish is used pretty much in pornography, until you can find what source you're trying to base this article on, and the real term for whatever it is you're trying to say, this pretty much serves as a bad example. Lotusduck 22:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Racial fetishes are always Marxist by definition. Don't look toward the Freudian theory for inspiration. --Wzhao553 21:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You make a super good point. The title Racial Fetish could apply to a commodity fetish, while this article talks only about sexual fetishism. Lotusduck 22:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't talk about anything yet because it has barely started. Also your obsession with pornography is frankly a bit strange and hard to grasp. Please read the Asian fetish article. -- JJay 00:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Way to be nice, jay. I have read the Asian fetish page. But the term "racial fetish" really isn't in currency anywhere other than personal websites on google. I said it before, Zero hits on any news source for the last two years. If the Asian fetish article uses the term racial fetish then it is wrong- search articles in any relevant topic feild and none of them use the term "racial fetish". Now, I like the Asian Fetish article very much, but the exact term "racial fetish" only slightly resembles something scholarly. It is however, used to describe pornography. It's a non-notable term, anything describing this term is unverifiable. Lotusduck 00:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The Asian fetish is a type of racial fetishism. That is obvious. This is mentioned in scholarly papers. This might be clear if you tried searching beyond your "news sources". If you are inclined, please look at a sampling of these sources [1]. However, for the last time, pornography is very much secondary to the issue. It is at best a manifestation. And I have no interest in discussing pornography with you. -- JJay 00:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I also searched a number of psych sources, if you read my comments. Still, you have more or less proven that there is some currency to this term, and a personal attack on my 'obsession' too. Lotusduck 20:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I spoke too soon on you being right about that google scholar thing. "Racial fetish" in quotes as a singular term gets 9 hits, 7 of which are about commodity fetishism. One is still likely about commodity fetishism or connected to Homi's definition, although it discusses sexuality in advertising, and a third seems to use the term as it used in this article. That's one article using the term that we've found with two people looking (assuming you searched for sources as I have) for a few weeks. The info on the idea of "racial fetish" being a type of sexual fetish must be re-written to reflect it's verified usage in this article. Also, google scholar has no hits for epidermal fetish, (although some hits for fetish that contain the word epidermal by chance) so that term shouldn't be included in this article. After that, I don't see what reason there would be behind this article being expanded. Lotusduck 02:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Writing about postcolonial research is hard. There's no question about that. The problem here is that we really need to assume that the reader has mastered Said's Orientalism as a prerequisite to understanding racial fetishism, which is of course unreasonable. But on the other hand, one cannot discuss postcolonial literature at all without reference to Said.

Let me suggest to you Suren Lalvani's article entitled "Consuming the Exotic Other" which attempts to connect commodity fetishism to sexual desire for the "Other" that Bhabha explores. The basic idea there is that in the Romantic consumer culture of Western Europe, "la femme orientale" is objectified as a commodity, and then consumed as a sexual object. Hence the commodity fetishism. The sexual element is definitely present in many discussions of racial fetishism. --Wzhao553 05:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with making reference to whoever you like: just summarise it in your own words and provide the references, as you did in that reply. You don't need to assume people have mastered anything, just explain it properly, there are plenty of other Wikipedia articles to make reference to for fringe concepts. NicM 08:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

Frame of reference appears to be sufficient for social frame. I used the term social frame because that's what the author of the paper used. It may mean something slightly different, but as the paragraph seems to mean the same and makes a lot more sense now to read, I say good job NicM. Lotusduck 03:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Jayjay's most recent addition

The Hamamoto reference has no claim relating the term epidermal fetish to the concept of racial fetish or racial fetishism. It does not use the term in the title of the article once.

Articles that don't use the term "racial fetish" should not be used as a reference for this term. Lotusduck 20:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You are really grasping at straws here. -- JJay 00:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What is it you're accusing me of now? If an article doesn't use a term, how can that article be used to define said term?

Besides, I said this about the hamamoto before, and you didn't object to it's removal then. Why should you be surprised that I think it doesn't belong again for the same reason? Also, I believe I gave reason a couple of times to remove the expand tag. But I suppose the expand tag does no harm. Whatever you mean, I don't appreciate the hostility- I wrote (although failed to format) the entire article as it is, I thought it didn't severely lack information from any reasonable sources, I explain my edits. Please see Wikipedia: Assume good faith Lotusduck 03:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

RexNL is vandalizing, he deleted a whole chapter.80.138.193.152 23:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This is free content with typical scientific short quotations.It is international standard, you know.Your statement is an amateurish try to disguise your vandalizing /censoring. 80.138.193.152 23:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Asian Fetish

An anon who posts from varying IP address in the range 80.138.x.x (located at a German ISP), has already been barred/banned/booted (don't know the precise Wiki term) from the page Asian fetish for posting this section, and it has been reverted here many times. It doesn't belong here, for certain. IMHO, it doesn't belong anywhere on WP, as it is WP:NOR. Perhaps someone should ask for semi-prot for this page as well. -- Gnetwerker 07:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Definition

This page no longer defines what the subject of the article is. swidly 06:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe there's no unique definition anywhere. That's what makes defining it so hard. See, e.g., [2]

These two forms of fetishism merge in the ubiquitous magazine images of Turkish, Gypsy, Circassian, North-African and other exotics draped in gold coins that exemplify what, separately and with somewhat different conclusions, Anne McClintock, Homi Bhabha, and Kobena Mercer have called racial fetishism.

--Wzhao553 07:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this is such an obscure sub-genre of post-modern literary criticism that it is incomprehensible to the normal, educated reader. A reading of the references here and on Asian fetish will (for most readers) confirm this. -- Gnetwerker 07:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you wanted the opinion of someone who knows nothing about the subject at all, there ya go. --Wzhao553 07:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The term is used several places, we just need to have sections that describe the definition of the term in each separate article. I tried it once, and I want to find some coherent way to put at least that stuff back in. I mean, this sets us up as recording and describing definitions of the term "racial fetishism" from different sources, as opposed to having a concrete definition for it. But people come here to learn what a term means, and what Homi Bhaba thought it ought to mean and what the people in the article you link say and how they use the term are important and notable things. The article should have at least as much information as it has references. 66.41.66.213 00:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I kind of liked this

The current version is very technical and hard to understand. The previous version was very technical and hard to understand. Still, I'd like to think that the description of the Homi article was useful:

- 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, lacking parts but not having different parts. He also describes racial fetish to be a fixation on other races being not different, but lesser or "mutilated" versions of the white male. - - Racial fetish may also refer to race and the Marxist idea of commodity fetish. Commodity fetishism refers to a supposed capitalist practice of measuring social or ethnic groups by what commodities they provide, ignoring social or political distinctions. Racial fetishism as commodity fetishism would be more racially defined commodity fetishism.

How was this so bad? I think this describes the definition posited in the article referenced. Right now, the article gives names but doesn't really say what the term might mean. Perhaps it is a poorly written or confusing explanation of the use of the term, but as I said, the page as it is does not define the term as much as just barely describe what sort of term it is and where you might see it. 66.41.66.213 00:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I guess it's doable, although I am almost certain that it was Kobena Mercer and not Homi Bhabha who connected racial fetishism with anxiety over "mutilated" versions of the white male. Otherwise, I agree. Passable for now. --Wzhao553 03:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The Bhaba article referenced here talks about whites percieving non-whites as mutilated versions of themselves. I don't remember if he said that someone else also used this idea. And with that, I'll re-add those sections, to be edited and expanded upon of course. 66.41.66.213 03:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Building New Cultures, Reframing Old Images: Success Strategies of Interracial Couples

In that article, participants in a study used the words "racial fetish" to mean a sexual fetish based on racist stereotypes, much like the idea on the asian fetish article. This is not how academics us the term racial fetish, and it's the only time I've seen the term used that way on paper. However, it may be worthwile to note that use, since it's what laypeople would assume "racial fetish" means. Perhaps this definition should be explained in the article if just for contrast? 66.41.66.213 19:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What is this article about?

I would think it would be about the state of persons of one race who find members of another race particularly sexually attractive. Somethign along the lines of the Asian fetishism article, but more general. Instead, it's somethign abotu females being viewed as castrated men and not much else. The relevance to the subject is not explained and it seems very narrow. I'm going to hunt for something to revert to in a few days if it isn't improved. Ace of Sevens (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Or, consider merging it into Ethnicity of performers in pornography. The combined article might deserve a new title such as "Ethnicity and sexual preference" (no, that sounds like it's about the pecentage of gays in each race) or "Sexual attraction toward ethnic groups"? "Racial Preferences in sexuality"? ...or whatever similar automatically has my support. --Gronky (talk) 22:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Or, steps could be taken to blunt the article's polemical edge: virtually every fetishization is interpreted as a form of cultural terrorism; rather than the primary function of fetishization in most people's lives, to give sexual attraction and sexual interest a more specific focus that takes it away from the blandly general and clinically reproductive. Fetishization can be a regressive and repressive force in society; but there are many more and worse offenders, such as racism and sexism. These make the pre-existent conditions of which fetishization is a symptom, not their cause. Nuttyskin (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

"After the Civil War..."

"After the Civil War, Black men were commonly acquitted for the rape of White women"

Surely this should read accused of. I think this could be Vandalism. I can't see any other reason for it to read as it does. Nuttyskin (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

White men?

Ammoungst black women for example in the USA and Asian women especially in Thailand or the Philippines there is a strong prevelence of a racial Preference for White men.--77.2.191.234 (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

ShimonChai (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes! I will write the white men tab out of personal experience and reference. Crazy how there isn’t one already. Lickchelsea (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Original research

So I went through and removed all unsourced original research, however, I didn't remove anything that could possibly be sourced with the citations given. If someone has the time, it might be worth it to look through the citations, and see if they are actually being used properly, since however wrote most of this article didn't use multiple citations for each paragraph, so I am skeptical as to how much those citations actually cover.

I would look through them myself but many of them are books I don't actually own, and I don't have the money / time to go and look through them. ShimonChai (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Latinos and Latinas

For the love of god, if you're going to post bullshit about Latin Americans, first stop referring to "white people" vs. "Latin Americans" as if they were two opposing forces. Latin Americans are a regional group, in no way are they a racial group. Latin America is inhabited by races throughout the world due to the complex history of colonialism and post-colonial immigration. Many Latin Americans are white, yet that part of the article discussed Latin Americans as if they were a separate race distinct from Latinos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Latin_Americans. Sofía Vergara is a white Colombian of European descent, yet the article was referring to her as if she was some distinct race. Please, before you speak about Latin Americans, at least realize that Latinos are in no way, shape or form a race. Actually within Latin America fetishization is very common towards BLACK and MULATA women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.163.172 (talk) 05:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Agree. The person who wrote this clearly has a USA-centered perspective.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree 100%. It almost feels like a vandal Lickchelsea (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Issues

There are several issues, the first major one is the commentary on the fetishization of black men has nothing to do with black men, but could be applied to fetishization of men in general. Such as the "sexualization" of will smith could have easily been done with a white man exactly the same. But that wouldn't make it racial fetishism. Also, female submission in general can have nothing to do with race, such as an Asian women submitting could literally be a women submitting in BDSM who happens to be Asian. Also, many of the citations are opinion papers of questionable quality but since only the abstract is linked I can't verify if those papers cite actual studies, as most of it is social commentary. ShimonChai (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Charlie's Angels

In the "Asian women" section there is a paragraph which says:

In media, there have been a variety of examples of the fetishism of Asians. In the film, Charlie's Angels, Lucy Liu's character says, "At your service," before massaging a man's feet.

The only citation is:

Charlie's Angels. Dir. Joseph McGinty Nichol. 2000. Film.

Someone has labelled this with a tag but no discussion has taken place.

As the citation is merely the primary source, there is no evidence that the supposed relevance of this text is due to anything other than WP:ORIGINAL research. Hence I propose its deletion. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I was probably the one who questioned the citation since I did a major edit trying to fix the neutrality. My problem was with both the sentence and the citation. I don't see how an Asian women being submissive is specifically related to Asians, or fetishistic them. A white women, or white man could have done that, and it wouldn't have been considered racial fetishism. There is clearly multiple points where normal submissive / dominate interactions, or even normal sexual interactions and things are listed as racial fetishism, but are merely just examples of people of a certain race doing something sexual, which shouldn't inherently be considered fetishistic their race. No one I think would reasonably disagree if I removed "In media, there have been a variety of examples of the fetishism of Asians. In the film, Charlie's Angels, Lucy Liu's character says, "At your service," before massaging a man's feet.[relevant? – discuss]" since it is clearly original research, and could be applied to white women and would not be considered racial fetishism. There is nothing specific about this that makes it pertain to her race. A good example of actual racial fetishism is people of colour role playing as slaves, or people of Jewish heritage role playing as prisoners, for the purpose of racial degradation. I see no reason, an Asian women can't just be submissive, and say something submissive, without it being an Asian fetish. ShimonChai (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done – Paragraph deleted as no objections to its removal have been raised. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Weird edits

Maxmizerski2000, would you like to stop making your weird edits? 'Black' and 'white' are oddly capitalized, and you seem to not be NPOV on the topic. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 06:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Exactly! People are politicizing for no reason. Lickchelsea (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of sources

@Crossroads: thank you for looking at the edits but I disagree with your decision to remove multiple sources. I have explained below why these sources should be considered for inclusion on this article.

First source:

This source partially speaks about how Asian women from countries like the Philippines, Thailand and Sri Lanka have been purcahsed as mail order brides by Western men.

Second source:

This source has a section that talks about how Asian women are popular among Caucasian men and the fetishised stereotypes that are attributed to Asian women. It speaks specifically about the phenomenon that was widespread in Sri Lanka before the onset of the Sri Lankan Civil War where Swedish and other Scandinavian and European men would travel to Sri Lanka specifically to search for Sri Lankan women to take back home as brides during the 1960s and 1970s. This information is found on pages 73 and 74, which I included in the source template.

Third source:

You said that it's from the perspective of Asians but I don't see how that's a valid reason to remove it. This is an Asian issue, that affects Asian women to be specific, so it makes sense to see Asians (especially Asian women) who have published articles about this because it affects them.

Fourth source:

This source talks about sex tourism in Asia and speaks specifically about how an estimated 200,000 to 400,000 German men annually travel abroad for sex tourism, with the Philippines, Thailand, South Korea, Sri Lanka and Hong Kong as their main destinations.

(2001:8003:4E96:4100:90E0:6BB2:E301:73C8 (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC))

The sources have to specifically say that these men fetishize Asians, not merely that Asians can be attractive to these men or that these men may marry them or they may take advantage of their socioeconomic conditions via mail order marriage or sex tourism. Otherwise it's WP:SYNTH (a type of OR, short for original research). I brought back the second source as it seems okay now that you have explained it. But the other sources seem to be synth. With regard to the third source, what I meant by 'from an Asian perspective' is that it is about Asians being attracted to Europeans, not the other way around. I definitely should have worded that better and did not at all mean that Asian perspectives on these phenomena should be discounted. The fourth one is difficult to evaluate since you have not provided a page number, but it shouldn't be used in the spot it was in based on what you said here. -Crossroads- (talk) 07:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Crossroads: Thank you for replying to my post and for having a second look at the sources. I understand your reasoning behind the removal of the other sources now that you have explained it. Thank you for explaining it. I also understand now what you mean in regards to the third source, I have obviously been mistaken and that source really should not have been listed here. Thank you for clarifying what you meant, it was clearly a misunderstanding and that's okay. I could provide you the page number for the fourth source but as you said, I now understand that it's not really appropriate to use in that section of the article because it doesn't explicitly speak about fetishisation. Thanks again for replying. (2001:8003:4E96:4100:90E0:6BB2:E301:73C8 (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC))

No problem. Glad we could work it out. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Please stop politicizing this.

It’s not just minorities, Add white men. I, As a brown woman, Have definitely fetishized BWC in the past years of my life. It’s not just me, As well. And please stop politicizing this. I saw a huffpost article linked. Yikes. Lickchelsea (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

As well as @2000savvy using “Feminism 101” as a source, LMAO! Lickchelsea (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Why is there no discussion of black men in the "white women" section?

Black men show a preference for white women in dating and marriage. Right now, the second most popular interracial coupling in America is white women and black men, according to this citation from Interracial Marriage in the United States: https://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2010.html

There is plenty of literature on this subject. It's commonly talked about in popular culture and within black communities. It seems pretty risible (and pretty far from NPOV) to not discuss it in an article about racial fetishization.

It's perfectly feasible to discuss this trend while maintaining a neutral point of veiw, it doesn't have to demean black men in the same way that the current article doesn't demean Chinese men. At least, not explicitly. But to just ignore it is downright pathetic when it's such a well-documented phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.20.109 (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)