Talk:Asian fetish

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Asian fetish article.
Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A Descriptive Header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions.	Talk page guidelines Please respect Etiquette, assume good faith and be nice.

This article was nominated for deletion on December 25, 2005. The result of the discussion was KEEP (closed early). An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

This article was nominated for deletion for the second time on 28/4/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives

Previous discussion can be found at:

• Talk:Asian fetish/Archive
• Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 2
• Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 3
• Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 4
• Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 5
• Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 6 -- contains discussion resulting in deletion of "Physical anthropology" and "testosterone" sections
• Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 7 -- 16 Feb 2006 - 11 Mar 2006
• Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 8 -- 11 Mar 2006 - 4 Apr 2006
• Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 9
• Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 10

An explanation

There may be some people that have an obsession with a certain ethnicity.
but
- maybe some people are tired of being stuck into one category, and want their children to be a little more immune to this racialism, you know what I mean?
I feel bad for people who are angry about this, but I think people need to look more objectively and with a bigger perspective, and look away from the past and towards the future, as difficult as that might be.Spettro9 05:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Not in academic vocabulary

I think this article has great balance to it, but to assert that, "is not an accepted part of the vocabulary of any academic or scientific discipline," is false. I do not see any way to determine this definitively, and I would argue that a large volume of writing in sociology on the subject in essence makes it part of the vocabulary of the field in a connotation neutral sense, the same goes for psychology or other ethographic fields. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.96.222 (talk • contribs)

Right. That we haven't found it in any academic or scientific vocabulary does not mean that it is not a part of those vocabularies. Absense of proof is not proof. Also, nowhere in the article is there an attempt to assert that the term is part of any academic or scientific vocabulary. I am wary about making any non-minor edits though, as this article is very tightly balanced, and a lot of non-minor edits could upset a balance that took a long time to develop. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. When you create symantic constructions that have little basis in truth and rooted in generalities that do not exist or for which there is no proof (IE: all white men who date asian women have "yellow fever" -- some odd disease that visits anyone who happens to have a relationship with an asian woman.) you are creating your own little existentialist world that is most of the time manufactured by asian men who are intensely insecure.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computer1200 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-06T04:32:45 (UTC)

Check the sources, I did not create a "symantic construction". Also, opposing POVs are offered in the article. Plus, I have never stated that "all white men who date asian women have 'yellow fever'", so please do not make baseless accusations. And really, judging from your statement here, your bias is very obvious. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm biased? You are accusing me of having some sort of wierd fetish (or in the case of "yellow fever," a disease) - (or at least not opposing the claim) and standing by while there is simply no way to know the heart of a white man from afar as he dates an asian woman. Obviously there are goofy men who do goofy things toward asian women. And there are plenty of goofy asian men who do goofy stuff toward white women. (I suppose they have "white fever" but we never hear about them, right?) I have great respect for the asian women I have dated. These women are always stunned and hurt when their asian male friends (mostly korean) get pissed that they are "not satisfied with their own kind." I cannot help but sometimes laugh at these men who are so incredibly obsessed with fighting this odd guerrilla war against white men. Also, Who is biased here when you have no idea who I am, what I am thinking, and what my motives are? I happen to be very attractive, successful, and enjoy dating wonderful white women, asian women, latin, or european. I greatly respect each of them for their differences, strengths, and perspectives. I will tell you that I have never in my life experienced a more odd, unfair stereotype than this bizarre "yellow fever, asian fetish" fabrication.... ::Let me be clear: I never once gave anyone -- asian or otherwise -- the right to define me. I am happy to be a white man. I have no silly "fever" made up by insecure asian men who need to demonize me to feel good about themselves.... I think the asian men who are creating this fairy tale, and asian women who support this claim (these asian women need to take a "I'm not as popular as I think I am Pill" and get a good night's sleep) need to hear this from white men categorically:

1. we are completely satisfied being who we are;

2. we never gave you the right to define us and we have no intention of submitting to your silly claim that we have some silly fever or fetish because we date some different race;

3. quit thinking you are more important than you are;

4. quit obsessing so much about us go about your business and life.

...thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computer1200 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-09 05:00:51 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the "imbalanced ratio" often gets blown out of proportion; the ratio for Asian women marrying whites to Asian men marrying whites is 2.5 :1 according to the US Census. Sometimes people who are against white men dating Asian women act like the ratio is 20:1 or something. Diego de Sequeira 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I understand that the term can be used to criticise interracial relationships, but I'd like to point out that this article shouldn't be about interracial relationships itself. There's already an article for that topic. Anyway, all I'm asking contributing editors to do is that if they're going to do non-minor edits like adding or deleting whole paragraphs, that they discuss first, because this has been a very contentious article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I don't disagree with you. It was just a passing comment, actually. Diego de Sequeira 01:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Other Racial Fetishes

Somebody create articles on White fetish, Black fetish, and Brown fetish so as to lend more support to the concept of Asian fetish. I don't see how other racial fetishes don't exist. Is Asian fetish the only racial fetish? Yes, probably, and because? Who knows? Maybe it's because east Asians consist of almost half of humanity (or at least in the near future). This article is kind of racist in nature, but there is strong evidence for asian fetish, especially portrayed in many American films, like Miami Vice (movie). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.96.153.247 (talk) 10:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Is Asian fetish the only racial fetish? Yes, probably, and because? Well, in the US at least, the difference between Asian fetish and other ethnic fetishes is that there is a huge gender imbalance. When you talk of blacks and latinos, there (appears) to be no real discrepancy in the male-to-female ratio participating from each race. Asian fetish is different, and indeed perhaps is only an issue because there is a strong tendency toward white-male/asian-female couplings. Normally when you talk of assimilation, as with blacks and latinos, the people get absorbed as a whole. For Asian-Americans, however, this is not the case -- Asian females are being assimilated in disproportionately larger quantities than males (the population of Chinese at least, leans slightly toward a male majority, yet you see fewer Asian males in the mainstream media than females). Everybody knows who Puff Daddy is, and everybody knows who Whitney Houston is, and everybody knows who Lucy Liu is, but how many people really recognize John Cho? And whose fault is it that John Cho is the best example that we have? Or perhaps Daniel Dae Kim, the guy on Lost, whose character is ridiculously oppressive -- but that's apparently how American writers want their audience to see Asian men, though a more accurate portrait would be that of the late James Kim. This is what makes Asians -- especially the men -- suspicious of the pattern in America's adoption of Asians. (Rightfully so? Well, that's what the debate is really about.) Don't forget also the image of Asians as being the "model minority" -- that is, the minority that quietly accepts its station in a white-dominated country and does not exhibit the kind of social retaliation that other minorities tend to lean towards. This further imprints into people's minds that they can freely pick and choose what they want from the Asian population and it is therefore ok to disregard the existence of half that population -- because, I suppose, the theory is that the sexless Asian men will back up the Scared White Man even as the white men take multiple mistresses at the Asian man's expense. The question at hand is, does the Angry Asian Man exist because of some natural discrepancy in the perception of Asian males and females in American society, or does he exist because America is controlled by the Scared White Man who fears losing his status to rivals who are renowned for a superior work ethic and intelligence (again, something which differs from other minorities -- sorry if that sounds racist but let's be real)? The increasing global, technological, and industrial power of China will, if nothing else, make this issue very interesting to watch over the next decade. Personally, I think this issue will come to a head in the US sooner than later, as more empowered Asian males come to terms with it. If the fetish bubble doesn't burst, you can expect that minority to stop being model -- don't forget, these people invented ninjas and they all know kung fu. 24.6.99.30 22:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the silly argument that "because there are more white male/asian female relationships than asian male/white female relationships when white men date asian women they have an "asian fetish" or "yellow fever." It's silly and makes those who argue this look immature. There is no correlation at all between the ratio of reltionships to some kind of proof that white men are experiencing a fetish or a fever. It's a tired, silly argument that makes no sense and has no foundation in truth. Sorry, guys. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Computer1200 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

I like this from the above rant from 24.6.99.30: "Personally, I think this issue will come to a head in the US sooner than later, as more empowered Asian males come to terms with it. If the fetish bubble doesn't burst, you can expect that minority to stop being model -- don't forget, these people invented ninjas and they all know kung fu." So what is being said here? If this myth of white men with some sort of wierd fetish dont stop dating asian women you guys are all going to put on your ninja outfits and kill us all? This gets more bizarre all the time. I should say that I am still hopeful that the intelligent asian men who are happy and insecure in who they are, (and do not need to demonize white men to feel good about themselves) will stand up and sound the alarm on this nonsense. But where are these asian men?

Well, if you want, feel free to write it. How is it racist? Against who?

"Maybe it's because east Asians consist of almost half of humanity (or at least in the near future)." This statement is racist itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.68.141 (talk • contribs)

Racism is the preference of one race over another. The fact other race fetish articles don't exist makes it appear as if asians are promoted.

In that statement, I should've said "Asians consist almost half of humanity," which is a fact. Anyways, I probably should've left it out all together. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.96.153.247 (talk) 07:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Let me help you out here. The guy who commented that it was racist is probably misreading it as "Asians are half-human". The intended meaning was that Asians account for half of the human population on Earth. It is not a racist comment, just very badly worded. 24.6.99.30 22:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with everything that's been said on either side of the argument here, but to the anonymous editor who stated that "racism is the preference of one race over another" - I have to disagree with you. From the Merriam-Webster dictionary, racism is[1]:

1) a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

2) racial prejudice or discrimination.

And many sociologists define racism as the application of power that is motivated by racial prejudice. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Egregious NNPOV

This article has a very clear anti-asian fetish bias, with both direct and implicated notions that an asian fetish is a negative thing and no alternative viewpoints are offered. While this view is valid, it is opinion and thus does not belong in wikipedia in its current form. The NNPOV in this article is so pervasive that I believe a complete rewrite is necessary. I would do it myself but I do not consider myself to be knowledgeable enough about this topic. Vonkwink 09:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Criticism of the term as well as the usage of the term is littered all over the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hong, then why did you remove an argument against the fetish? You removed my addition claiming it was completely unreferenced. Why didn't you just put a citation request like the wikipedia policy states! Perhaps you just can't handle other possible explanations! If you want references, you will get them. But if you delete what you don't agree with, there is no chance for a reference! 144.81.32.187 16:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is very contentious. Please discuss first before you add a whole new section. Besides, the references in this article itself would seem to counter your point that the term is "completely unreferenced". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I also added some material to the article before it was locked. Was that you that kept deleting it Gong? Rest assured I will be visiting this topic often. I for one will not be forced into some bizarre stereotype created by the Gongs of the world to feel better about themselves. Why can't asian men be satisfied with being asian men without demonizing white men? Do you not see that this war against white men completely betrays the depths of your insecurity? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Computer1200 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Of possible interest

Here is a little bit of information I came across just now that might be of interest to editors who care about this article: "The percentage of marriages between Japanese men and Western women began to rise and in 1975 exceeded the number of Western men-Japanese women marriages-- a trend that has since continued. At present [1996], approximately 70 percent of all international marriages in Japan involve Japanese men and foreign women." -- DeMente, Boye Lafayette. (1996). Japan Encyclopedia Passport Books, Lincolnwood, Illinois, p.246

I hope this is of some use. Dekkappai 03:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It'll be more useful in interracial marriage. This article is not about interracial marriage, but about a type of sexual attraction. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, HongQiGong. I see that the article on interracial marriage already includes a mention of this. However this article suggests that, beyond any normal sexual attraction to other people, which may include any number of criteria, there are actual physical anthropological reasons for an Asian fetish on the part of white men for Asian women. For example: "One possible explanation for the higher incidence of White male - Asian female couples as compared to East Asian male - White female pairings may be higher average levels of testosterone found among Whites as compared to East Asians." Well, first, apparently in Japan, the imbalance is on the opposite side. And if this physical anthropological basis for an Asian fetish were true, wouldn't the sexual imbalance be universal, rather than just in some countries? I'll leave it up to you and the other editors here though. This article seems to be a mess of several unspoken ideological agendas warring with each other, none of which interest me. Dekkappai 22:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Gong: what about before they were married? Hello? Whether they are married or not, it bursts one of your claims that has no basis in truth: that there are so many more white male/asian female marriages out there than the converse; and therefore, white men are evil and trying to exploit asian people. It's flat bizarre. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Computer1200 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Biological Basis

There can be no discussion of sexual preference without some information about the biological and evolutionary factors. HongQiGong has taken it upon himself to delete without discussion. There is an extremely strong evolutionary basis for sexual selection! It would be useful to include this in any discussion involving it. Please write a yay or nay to show your support. 144.81.32.187 16:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There was never a source discussing specifically Asian fetish in the biological context. That section was original research strung together by unrelated articles. There has also been past discussions on that section and it had been taken out a long time ago. But regardless, please discuss before adding an entire section. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I am discussing it! There is a need to address the biological factors involved in the fetish. There I said it! It doesn't matter if some hair-brained theories were removed before. This still needs to be addressed. I don't see any scientific sources on the fetish at all! The DSM's definition of fetish is for inanimate objects. Should we then remove the whole article because there is no good research cited? Most of the sources are either humorous or editorials. Perhaps we should rename the article "Asian Fetishes in Popular Culture", and remove any claims of scientific validity. So either permit the science or remove it. Do not pick and choose. 144.81.32.187 16:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

So is your issue that the article is poorly sourced, or that we need to add a new section discussion biology? Which is it? If you think that the article is poorly sourced, I would think that the solution is to work on sourcing it better, and not adding a new section that is poorly sourced and basically original research. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You know which it is, read the first sentence of my discussion! My point is allow the science or remove any scientific claims from the article currently. Why is it that the current content of the article can remain even though it is porrly sourced, but the biological stuff cannot remain poorly sourced? I agree with you: the solution is to work on sourcing it better, not removing any and all biological claims, as you have done! Allow poorly sourced biological material to remain, giving it a chance to be sourced better, or remove all the poorly sourced material, which would be most of the article! I mean look at reference 4. WTF? That is a internet forum! 144.81.32.187 17:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That hardly justifies editors putting in yet more poorly sourced materials. Again, the article is very contentious. I would prefer that we discuss the addition of so much material before we actually insert it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should remove the poorly sourced material. I will commence tomorrow. 144.81.32.187 17:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't disrupt Wikipedia in order to illustrate a point. Please register a username to assist communication. -Will Beback · † · 18:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You can also discuss exactly what it is you would like to add to the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This whole article ignores human biology that leads to certain racial trends in intermarriage. Moreover, most of the present information stems from a group group of Asian supremacists, primarily from the website modelminority.com. Their intention is to cast a negative light on White-Asian intermarriage through articles such as this. Their information is poorly sourced, the only sources are other Asian American "activists" who also oppose White-Asian sexual relationships. Biological reasons are ignored in favour of racist conspiracy theories, about the mass media etc. --Mr Phil 04:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr Phil, I am surprised to find you still trolling this article. You and the other German poster long ago tried to twist this article into a discussion on racist anthropological theories. I believe that other German poster was eventually banned for his actions, but here you are still. The first line of the article states that this article is not about healthy interracial relationships nor is there any opposition to "white-asian relationships" in general. This article is merely referring to a *type* of relationship. The fact that you so quickly dismiss all effects of culture, racial stereotypes, and mass media show that you are not the least bit interested in discussin this article and are only here to promote your racist anthropological theories. Anybody here can scroll back to through the discussions to see what you are all about.OneViewHere 04:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr Phil, I have reverted your additions as you have repeatedly tried to add these SAME passages to the article countless times before. And each time, the Wikipedia community by CONSENSUS decided to remove those passages. The fact that you are trying to add those same passages again amounts to vandalism. If you persist in doing this I will notify the Wikipedia Admins.OneViewHere 04:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record in case anybody needs proof of Mr Phil's vandalism, please look through the article's edit history. Look at the October 9-06 entries and then look way back to Feb-06. It's been a full YEAR that this person has been trying to re-add those same passages.OneViewHere 04:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the Talk page archives contain discussions on why that section is removed. I don't even know where to begin to point out how inappropriate that deleted section is, least of all the use of Steve Sailer as a source. The guy is a plain racist. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct. Steve Sailer is a well documented racist. Also, this user Mr Phil once tried to quote an article from a magazine called "American Renaissance" to support his racist theories. American Renaissance is a white supremacist magazine. Interestingly enough, there is a Wikipedia article on Steve Sailer that documents his racist leanings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Sailer OneViewHere 05:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

--Mr Phil 07:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I just can't support the racist agenda you try to promote here --Mr Phil 07:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr Phil, I hardly think you are in a position to accuse other users of being racist when you quote Steve Sailer and quote from a white supremacist magazine. You also tried to re-add content that was already decided by the Wikipedia community to be removed from this article. Your attempts to re-add that content is vandalism and I will be notifying the Wikipedia admins.OneViewHere 22:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

According to some recent leftist definitions of racism, anyone who believes in the existence of human races/stirpes/taxa is a racist. So asking for biological reasons for the attraction of Caucasian men by Mongoloid women would be racist. So isn't HongQiGong a racist asking for those explanations according to these definitions ? Or hypocritical because despite asking for it he helped to suppress the real anthropological explanations in the past? 80.138.178.141 11:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That would only be hypocritical of me if I was a "leftist" who believes that "existence of human races/stirpes/taxa" is racist. But I'm not, and I don't. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This user that goes by the IP address of 80.138.178.141 is the same German user that originally tried to add the racist anthropological content. It is clear that this unregistered user is acting in conjunction with Dr. Phil to vandalize this article. This unregistered user has been known to make racist comments in the past. He claimed once that "Jews control Wikipedia". That comment is in the discussion archives of this article and can be viewed by anyone. Please refer to the discussion archive #6 where a vote was taken to remove this racist anthropological content.OneViewHere 22:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As a 'neutral' observer (I stumbled upon this article and its current dispute through a watched user talk page, quite by accident, and I have no interest whatsoever in the subject matter), I am astonished to look at the page history and see the submissions/reversions by Mr Phil. The intonation is of a blatant racist and inflammatory nature. I am happy to mention this as there was a call for yay or nay at the top of the post. 'Nay' to Mr Phil, I'm afraid. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 23:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please actually read the article

I really wish that some of the editors who come to this article screaming all kinds of foul would actually spend some time to read the article as it currently stands.

1. In the intro itself, it is already mentioned that some believe that this term is used to condemn interracial relationship.
2. In the terminology section, it is already mentioned that Asian fetish is not recognised as a real fetish by the medical or psychological community.
3. There is actually a whole section on the use of the term to condemn interracial relationships.

In other words - your complaints about this term is already covered in the article. Just read it instead of rushing in here to tell people how much you hate this term. We don't care. Go write about it in your blog. This Talk page is about the editing of this article, not about the term itself. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"We don't care. Go write about it in your blog." Nice, Gong. Now that's the freedom of debate and ideas. The reason that white men stop by this incredibly out of balance wikipedia entry is because you and others have chosen to define us according to your own twisted obsession with making us look bad because we have happened to date women of other races, including asian women. Sorry: we don't bow to your definitions of us, and we do not allow you permission to define us. Again, sorry.