Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 4

Delete

This entire article needs to be deleted.

Sellout?

F***... no wonder my gf's dad doesent like me going out with her...

I Think this article was made by some racist f***wits, who want people to stick to the same race.

In my own epinion, i like women who actually are feminine. i.e. Asian, Latina etc. (that still doensent mean that there arent appealing women of other races out there)

In another way, different races, to me, are just different forms of human adaption to environment, sure, intelligence things akin to that are of the same amount, but, for example, "black" people have just adapted to thire environment over 100s of years, hence, thier skin pigmentation is stronger. And i understand that people of other races, including my own should not be subjected to this bulls**t.

SHUT THAT PAGE DOWN.

"Critics"

"Supporters of the "Asian fetish" theory see these cases as clear evidence of the harmfulness of what they see as a serious social problem. But critics question whether or not this annecdotal evidence really shows a pervasive societal trend."

Man thank god for the unnamed critics. I'd like to see what these critics actually say (if they even exist) and I'd like an explanation to their theory of whats going on....

But as mentioned above by other people, this must be some random occurances that is totally detached from the fact that these people are Asian and female. I mean, anti-semitism is really just random inccidents where people hate others who happen to coincidentally be Jewish.SillyAlgebraist 07:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

So long as these "Critics" remain ever so mysterious they will not appear on the article.SillyAlgebraist 03:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

On the attempt to water this article down

"There is a great deal of controversy surrounding the issue: some would regard the term "Asian fetishist" to be a 'racist' stereotype of white men (although some race theorists see this view as problematic because it disregards what they consider to be the realities of white privilege & power); others regard the underlying phenomenon itself as evidencing racism on the part of white men who are attracted to Asian women, and possibly on the part of the Asian women themselves (racism against their own cultures)."

Actaully the real and obvious objection is that this term is not utilzed for the entirety of the set of "white male." Its obviouslly a term used for a specific subset of a the group of white men who date asian women. No where is it stated that AF/WM if and only if Asian Fetishism. Therefore, this statement biasis the perspective off the bat. The term is merely a label that was created after the phenomenon was shown to have existed. Thus, it would not be considered a "racist" term.

Would one call pedaphillia racist? Pedaphilles in America are mostly white, yet no one objects to this term at all. The same goes here, it is obviouslly a deviant behavior, which has become prevelent enough for people to notice.

One could perhaps start to build a case to consider the term racist if it asserted that all relationships of this nature are fetishes. Yet it does not. SillyAlgebraist 07:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Um yeah, so you're comparing a preference for people of a certain ethnicity with a preference for young children and you don't think that's controversial. I don't see how I can make it more clear just how rediculous your argument is. And where is your evidence that "pedaphilles in America are mostly white" (disproportionate to their share of the population)? And even if we accept your premise that a strong preference for Asian women is a pathology akin to pedophilia, then an objective analysis would have to conclude that this is a predominantly Asian pathology. The vast majority of people with a strong sexual preference for Asian women are Asian men! Blackcats 02:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

No you obviouslly have comprehension problems (but I've figured that one out way before this). I am comparing the labeling and saying that it is not racist. Which it isn't. It is rather elementary reasoning, since the label "pedaphillia" is a term assigned to a subset of the greater group of "white males" it cannot be racist/sexist, since there exists members of the set of white males that do not fall within that subset.

The same goes for Asian Fetishism. It is by no means a racist label since it is merely a subset. This other nonesense you typed

"And where is your evidence that "pedaphilles in America are mostly white" (disproportionate to their share of the population)? And even if we accept your premise that a strong preference for Asian women is a pathology akin to pedophilia, then an objective analysis would have to conclude that this is a predominantly Asian pathology. The vast majority of people with a strong sexual preference for Asian women are Asian men!"

Is a result of your lack of comprehension skills. Except for the fact that most pedaphilles are white males... that is true in the United States, and yes it probably has to do with the fact that the majority of the potential pedaphilles is determinent by the base population, which is predominatly white & male. Yet, this was not the focus of the statement. SillyAlgebraist 03:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should be comparing these guys to pedophiles at all. It's a far-fetched comparison, and this article should not attempt to throw mud at any one particular group (see also WP:NPOV). There is a huge difference between entering into relationships with women (or men) of a certain race (which is legal) and entering into a relationship with a child (which is generally illegal). Also, in prison culture (as I have learned about in a criminal justice class I took in college) pedophiles are treated worse than any other criminals, because even murderers, rapists, and the like deem pedophilia to be unacceptable. I entirely agree with what Blackcats is saying. Further, I think it was maintained in earlier discussions on this talk page, and in the archives, that not all AF/WM relationships are based on a fetish, and that some AM/WF relationships can also be based on a fetish. --Idont Havaname 03:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok you obviouslly did nto read it either... IF YOU WANT I will change the label "Pedaphile" to some other deviant behavior. The POINT is Asian Fetish IS NOT a racist term. My statements used pedaphilia as an example of a subgroup that does not encompass the whole group and thus is not making an equilvence statment ..... I AM NOT SAYING PEDAPHILIA = WHITE MEN.... Nor am I saying PEDAPHILIA = Asian Fetihist. .... I am saying .... the term "ASIAN FETISH" like "PEDAPHILIA" is not a racist label but is assinged to a specific subgroup of people......SillyAlgebraist 04:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

S.A. - Your personal insults against your opponents and their comprehension skills aside, I think it is you who has either failed to understand (or more likely chosen to ignore) something here which has been pointed out to you repeatidly - namely WP:NPOV. Wikipedia does not condemn "deviant behaviors," or any behaviors for that matter (aside from the behaviors of Wikipedia editors sometimes). Even Pedophilia is not condemned by Wikipedia (Wikipedia simply presents and cites the objections of others and the fact that it's widely condemned in society). As for most other "deviant behaviors," or "fetishes," it is highly controversial as to what is or isn't a "deviant behavior" or "fetish." I recall somewhere above you cited urine fetish. This too, like all other such behaviors, is not condemned by Wikipedia. My own personal view is that whatever two (or more) consenting adults choose to do in the privacy of their own home is their business, and I'm not gonna criticize it. The prevailing view of the mainstream of American psychology is largely similar, in that if something is not interfering with one's ability to function in day to day life and have healthy relationships, and it's not causing direct and tangable harm to others, then they're not going to consider it a pathology. And it's been many many years since any reputable American psychologist considered inter-racial relationships to be a pathology. As the article states, "Asian fetish" isn't even considered to be a fetish by psychologists. It's simply a slang term. Blackcats 23:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, we really need to change that statement about Asian fetish not being considered a fetish. The literature says that Asian fetish is a cultural fetish, or rather, a collection of several cultural fetishes, directed toward a foreign (Asian) culture. (There's some unfortunate ambiguity here, I admit. A cultural fetish can either be a fetish embedded within a culture or a fetish about a culture, and both meanings can apply in some circumstances.) Cultural fetishes exist and will always exist, some (but not all) to the point of not even being considered deviant. For example, the footbinding cultural fetish in China was not considered deviant when it still existed, nor is the Japanese cleanliness fetish (term in the literature, not mine) considered deviant today. The primary difference here is that Asian fetish is a fetish directed towards a foreign culture or cultures. In fact, this article is really pointless until we have a proper article on (foreign) cultural fetishes, because only in that context can we properly begin to talk about Asian fetish(es). --Wzhao553 03:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Sock puppet of SillyAlgebraist??? Either that or someone who joined Wikipedia specifically to weigh in on this debate... See: User contributions Blackcats 03:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there does need to be a complete overhaul based on the literature. I'll await to see the new article.SillyAlgebraist 03:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If you can find a published article where a psychologist has discussed a sexual preference for Asian women as a "fetish," then by all means include that and cite it. In any event, that's really tangental to the main point I was making regarding WP:NPOV and the fact that Wikipedia articles cannot take a position this issue or any other. Blackcats 03:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Since he's not me it must be the later.... it'll be nice to have someone else to talk to other then a white apologist Jew whose ability to comprehend even simple logic and reasoning seems to be so lacking I question whether its even worth discussing anything.... by the way, isn't it interesting that all of your pathetic 'theories' on the dispartiy in America have been shut down in one response. Quite revealing that you have not commented on the them since.... SillyAlgebraist 05:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

SillyAlgebraist - if your personal attacks continue the way they have then it's likely that an RFC or some other sort of proceedings will be started against you. As for the argument above, I decided it wasn't worth my time to refute every point you were making. The main purpose of these talk pages isn't to debate the issues, it's to discuss how the articles are being edited, so from now on I'm only gonna focus on points directly related to the editing of the article. Blackcats 08:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

No its much more obvious that you CANT refute them. In fact, the "debate" going on here is that your trying to whitewash and silence opposition to your biased viewpoint. Go ahead fill out your form, block me as a user, We'll just all know why you had to do it. SillyAlgebraist 15:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• BlackCats, considering that I wrote the sections on Negative stereotypes and Negative social consequences, please have some more respect to the major contributing authors of this site. Your hostility is not going to be reciprocated. Secondly, we will include and cite material at our own pace, after, as I said earlier, we have a working article on cultural fetishes. --Wzhao553 05:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Wzhao553 - Considering that when I stumbled upon this article it was among the most biased and POV that I'd ever seen on Wikipedia, the fact that you were a "major contributing author" to it (presumably as an annonomous user) does not particuarly impress me. Adressing your inclusion and citation of material, any pace is alright with me so long as the inclusion does not preceed the citation. Blackcats 08:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Just a quick addition though, because this is the only thing I can remember how to find off the top of my head:

@article{durham01,
author = "M. G. Durham",
title = "Displaced persons: symbols of {S}outh {A}sian femininity and the returned gaze in {U.S.} media culture",
journal = "Communication Theory",
volume = "12",
number = "2",
pages = "201--217",
year = "2001",
annote = {{\em Abstract.} The media's showcasing of nose rings, {\em mehndi} and {\em bindis}, in U.S. fashion is a contemporary appropriation of South Asian symbols by Western popular culture. This paper employs a critical analysis of media images of White women adorned in the symbols of Indian femininity to explore the circulating economy of seeing and representation. The theoretical intervention offered here turns on the notion of the Third Eye -- the potential for the object of ethnographic spectacle to return the gaze. The analysis reveals that the contemporary "ethnic chic" preserves power hierarchies by locating the White woman as sexual object, and the Indian woman as the disembodied fetish that supports White female sexuality. The implications for South Asian American women include the need to re-imagine sexuality with reference to critical race theory and the potential to return an oppositional gaze.} }
}
--Wzhao553 05:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Wzhao553 - the abstract you cited does not look to be written by a psychologist or anyone who would be considered an objective source on whether or not sexual preferences for Asian women are now being considered fetishes by American psychologists. Whenever I come across language like "preserves power hierarchies by locating the White woman as sexual object," it becomes clear to me that this is POV driven postmodernist commentary. And that may be great for a term paper in a cultural studies or literary criticism class, but it's not appropriate for an article in an NPOV encyclopedia like Wikipedia - other than perhaps as a presentation (in the third person) of someone's opinion. I don't want to start any sort of personal dispute with you, and it may well have been an honest misunderstanding on your part if you put stuff like that in the article, but Wikipedia just isn't the right place for that sort of thing. Like I said, that sort of analysis can be presented as someone's opinion, but it can't be asserted as the position of Wikipedia. Blackcats 08:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother posting sources yet, isn't it obvious that no citation you or I (or anyone) gives that contradicts Blackcats biasis can ever be considered "real citation," (obviouslly every word that Blackcats speaks is tautologically correct). Certanily they must fall under the group he called "queer theorist, etc" and therefore exceedingly irrelevent. SillyAlgebraist 06:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Blackcats, while we certainly do not expect everyone who comments on this entry to be knowledgeable about cultural fetishes, it would be best for you to refrain from making personal attacks against people who do. For instance, it is still puzzling why you continue to insist on obtaining commentary from a psychologist on something that is by definition a sociological phenomenon. This is reasoning that I have yet to comprehend. Could you please explain it to me?

But more to the point, instead of trying to attack and argue with me on this topic, if you really want to contribute to this entry, it would be a much better use of your time to instead try and learn about what commodity fetishism is and what Orientalism is. Wikipedia already has entries on both. After that, you can begin to learn about what a cultural fetish is, and what the interplay between commodity fetishes and cultural fetishes is. Unfortunately, we do not yet have an entry on that. After that, you will be able to see how the interconnection between Orientalism and cultural fetishism gives rise to the concept of a foreign cultural fetish. Finally, after that, you will be able to understand what the literature on Asian fetishes is saying. Best of luck in that regard.

At any rate, the primary problem for this entry is not a lack of NPOV. It is a clear lack of true statements and an abundance of false and ridiculous assertions. I mean, just think about it. Comparing Asian fetish to pedophilia? That's just absurd. Asian fetish is not considered deviant behavior. True, one can argue that there are similarities between the exoticization of Asian culture qua commodity fetish and the Victorian sexual fetish for "unspoilt innocence"; but there's not much more to say than that both are examples of cultural fetishism. One can even argue that, just as marriage with 13-year old girls was commonplace in Western Europe 300 years ago, so Asian fetish could conceivably come to be considered as deviant behavior 300 years from now, but that's just wild speculation and not at all supportable by any evidence or reasoning. If this article is going to improve, then these stupid assertions are going to need to go. --Wzhao553 19:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Wzhao553 - First of all, the personal attacks on this page have been coming not from me but from SillyAlgebraist. Now to address your comments, I'm aware of the theories of theories of "commodity fetishism" and "Orientalism," and other such theories. The point is that those articles are much much more neutral than this one was until very recently. And they present the theories and opinions for what they are - theories and opinions - not a truth that Wikipedia is asserting. For example, the "commodity fetishism" article begins with "In Marxist theory, commodity fetishism is an inauthentic state of social relations, said to arise in complex capitalist market systems, where social relationships are confused with their medium, the commodity." [emphasis added] So you see how this idea is presented as what it is - the subjective beliefs of people who follow a certain theory. Incidently, this article notes that this concept is closely related to another Marxist concept - false consciousness. I think this idea, of Marxist origin, forms much of the basis for a lot of the pro-"Asian Fetish" rhetoric I've seen. What causes real chagrin to a lot of followers of this theory is not so much the fact that some white men happen to lust after Asian women (as this in itself would be of little consequence), but rather the fact that many Asian women reciprocate those feelings. But these theorists don't want to believe that these could just be the natural desires of free-thinking Asian/Asian-American women, so they draw on the false consciousness theory to argue that these women have been brainwashed by the media to think they want something that they don't really want. Now about why I called for a pscyhologist to be cited, that was in response to your comment that "Asian fetish" was now being considered a fetish. Your comment was in response to A response I had made to SillyAlgebraist, who was claiming that "Asian fetish" was a form of deviant behavior. My point was that we would need a reputable psychology source to support that kind of assertion. If you want to present the opinion of a social theorist who uses the term "fetishism" in the Marxist sense of the word then that's one thing, but it needs to be made clear that A. this is someone's opinion and B. that the word "fetish" here is being used in a very different sense than the psychological meaning that most people use the word to mean. I also should point our that the discipline of social analysis is, by its very nature, far more subjective than psychology, which in turn is more subjective than the hard sciences. Unfortunately (IMO), this disciple has become even more subjective in recent decades with the prevalence of postmodernism, which rejects objective facts all together and reduces everything to a "text." So to their way of thinking, everything is rhetoric. At least on the bright side, they might admit that that's what their own analysis is - rhetoric, not (even an attempt at) objective documentation of social phenomenon. Blackcats 20:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it seems like we've reached a point where we can agree on two things:

(1) No one so far has come up with an acceptable definition of Asian fetish that is actually used in the literature. Primarly, the sentence "Asian fetish is not a fetish in the strict Freudian definition of the word," if you look back far enough, has been there since the very beginning of the article. There needs to be a proper sociological definition, which is specifically identified as being postmodern. Then, anyone who doesn't like postmodernism can dismiss Asian fetish as that, and go post their diatribes on the postmodernism entry for all we care.

(2) There is a big problem with people rewriting statements intended as rhetoric into statements of fact. For example, the original introduction of Negative stereotypes was supposed to be:

"In analogical terms, the Asian fetish can be viewed as the conflation of two negative stereotypes – of the Asian male dating an Asian female on the one hand, and of the white male dating an Asian female on the other hand – on the physical, emotional and cultural levels."

Then people started changing and reducing the rhetoric, because they didn't understand what phrases such as in analogical terms or can be viewed as or even said to arise meant and why they are necessary, thinking that they were helping by making the entry sound simpler by removing these phrases. If there exists some Wikipedia tag that can be used to discourage people from mishandling this kind of editing, then someone please figure out how to put it into place. --Wzhao553 17:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This sentence should be deleted: "In another sense, this can even be viewed as a result of sexual competition between Caucasian women and Asian women: by rejecting their Caucasian counterparts, white males who date only Asians can come to be regarded as inferior, unworthy, or even in extreme cases, genetically flawed." Completely unverifiable and baseless, not to mention one of the most glaring attacks on this article. —Bmdavll ^talk 10:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Possible splitting of this article

(Response to Wzhao553's comments at 17:04, 1 December 2005) - First of all, I want to thank you for being a lot more civil and constructive than many of the other users have been on this talk page. To address the points you raise, if the term "Asian fetish" is now used in published articles by social theorists, then perhaps it would make sense to split the article into two - one for the phrase's use as a slang term and one for its use as a social theory term. Perhaps Asian fetish (social theory) and Asian fetish (slang), and the main page would then become a disambig page. This way the more serious social analysis would be less likely to be disturbed by the more contentious issues of the phrase's use as a slang term. Of course both articles would still have to be NPOV and present opinions and not assert them. If social theorists aren't currently using that phrase, then an analysis of their views might be more appropriate at a different article. Also, it might make sense to have a third article which specifically addresses the various opinions on inter-racial relationships between Whites and Asians without a specific focus on the phrase "Asian fetish." Blackcats 06:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

While your suggestion of splitting the article is plausible, that will more likely be determined until after a good portion of the literature has been transferred onto the page and not otherwise. Meanwhile, however, while you have raised many important points and helped bring the terminology needed to improve this article, still it sometimes appears that you still lack a lot of the knowledge to qualify you to actually write about Asian fetishes.

I am referring primarily to your comment below that you had never heard of the term before coming here, which you must admit makes one wonder how qualified you may be to speak on the subject. But more to the point, you've also written some material that is at times downright puzzling: the insistence to add "Taiwanese aborigines," even though that ethnic group comprises only 2% of the population of Taiwan, to the list of targets of Asian fetish at the beginning of the entry; your classification of multiracial.com and Asianwhite.org as opposing Asian fetish, even though they both have pages discussing Asian fetish ([1], [2]); and your suggestion below that this article was started by ModelMinority.com members, even though one can see that the earliest archived talk page and earlier versions of this entry seem to suggest that it was an entry arguing that Asian fetish did not exist.

Now, while statements like these may just be the result of another misunderstanding like before when it was not clear that cultural fetishes are sociological phenomena and not psychological in nature, they still open up the door to a lot of confusion and subsequent pointless bickering. It is necessary to strive for NPOV, but getting the facts, figures and statistics right is the first priority; neutrality can be handled later; but right now, since we don't have a plausible definition of the "Asian fetish" theory, it's getting ahead of ourselves. --Wzhao553 02:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Wzhao553 - I'll try and address the points you made... First, regarding the Taiwanese Aboriginese, the reason I put that in was because an IP user kept replacing "Chinese" (which linked to Han Chinese) with Taiwanese. Most Taiwanese are Han Chinese, and they're no more a separate ethnicity than the Chinese of Singapore. So like I said in my edit summary, because that editor seemed to have a strong desire to see Taiwan represented and the links should all go to unique ethnic groups, so it seemed a reasonable compromise. I don't know that too many people have a preference specifically for the indigenous Taiwanese, but what the hell...If anyone wants to remove it then I certainly won't argue, but we may then have to keep reverting it every time that user changes "Chinese" to "Taiwanese."

Second, regarding my expertise or lack there of, this is not an area where I have done a whole lot of in depth research, but I do have a fairly good general understanding of the issues involved - both from accademic studies and personal experiences and observations. It's true that I hadn't heard the specific phrase "Asian fetish" before, but I had heard the same basic allegations made. (BTW - I'm not sure if "Asian fetish" is neccesarilly the best title for this article, we may want to move it...) A few years ago I was close friends with a (white) guy here who had a strong preference for Asian women and a fascination with Asian culture in general. He even spent several years studying both Chinese and Japanese. Some people here (typically of the "politically correct" persuasion) would often give him shit about wanting to date Asian women. He had been with the same woman as long as I'd known him, but apparently had been with several other Asians before that. Everything I observed about his relationship seemed very healthy and loving, and it upset me that those other people I knew would be so hostile and judgemental. I told them that "if they make eachother happy then who are you to say that it's wrong?" Now he's living with her in San Fransisco while she attends grad school there, and after she graduates she's gonna return to Japan and he's gonna move there to live with her.

Regarding the links section, you may notice that the titles I gave them were rather akwardly worded. That was in order to maintain accuracy while splitting it into just two sections. There are of course a number of different positions on these issues, and a more detailed sub-sectioning would probably be ideal. Specifially regarding the asianwhite.org site, from what I've read there, they seem to take a very positive few on inter-racial relationships. I was actually about to add that site to the links to give some balance and was pleased to see it was already there. I may still add some of its sub-pages. It's true that that site does say that some people have an unhealthy "Asian fetish," and I think that most people, myself included, would say that there are at least a few people who have some unhealthy racial attractions based solely on stereotypes and/or objectification. I think the real debate is over whether or not this so called "fetish" is in fact pervasive among white men with a preference for Asian women. In my experience - among the men I've talked with, their preference for Asian women was based on their physical traits and/or an attraction to Asian culture. I have not spoken with a single guy who said that he like Asian girls because they were submissive. I'm sure such men exist, but I think most Asian women would be smart enough to avoid those sorts of guys, so they probably wouldn't have much luck hooking up with any Asian women - save prostitues and would likely be quite frustrated. That may be why some wingnuts committed the bizzare crimes listed in the article. Interestingly, only one of them was apparently in any kind of romantic relationship with an Asian woman.

Finally, regarding modelminority.com, it's not clear to me whether or not someone from there actually made the first entry here. this is the first entry, and it doesn't really tell us much one way or the other. What is clear though, is that people from that site were responsible for most of the major expansion of the article between then and now and for its considerable bias. And from my experience with people from that site thus far, it seems to be filled with a lot of extremists, hot-heads, and bigots. You're the only person I've converssed with from there who has been able to carry on an intelligent and civil conversation or debate. There may be more people there who want to seriously adress real issues (as opposed to just being reactionary and hateful), but they're likely to be hindered in those efforts if they don't do something to get the extreamists under control and let them know that bigotry won't be tollerated. Blackcats 05:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Commentary moved from article

Finally, there is the criticism that the attraction to Asian women is a minor aesthetic preference of no real consequence, no different from finding blondes or brunettes attractive. --Comentary by user 80.190.250.139 - moved here from the article.

This very well could be the case, and several registered users have brought it up at this talk page in the past. I don't see any harm done in having it there. --Idont Havaname 23:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

For those that argue there is nothing wrong with asian fetish

"Finally, there is the criticism that the attraction to Asian women is a minor aesthetic preference of no real consequence, no different from finding blondes or brunettes attractive."

There is a huge difference. If asians did not have children with each other there would be no asian people. If a white man prefers blondes or brunettes within the white race the children still end up being white. See the difference?

To put it in prespective. Imagine all white men preferred asian women. It would equate to genocide of asian people. That's the difference.

I also find it funny that 99% of the people who promote this idea are white. Is this not true Wikipedia? That's why this comment should not be deleted.

Nobody's gonna delete your comment or anyone else's. I'm personally glad that you put that comment there, as it provides a good illustration of just how bigotted and paranoid (at least some of) the pro-"Asian fetish" theory people are. As the years go by, and more and more people travel and move throughout the world, there pobably will continue to be fewer and fewer people of one race, but I don't know that this is a bad thing. In spite of what all the "pure white race" people say, most white people are pretty mixed as it is, given Europe's proximity and trade with Africa and the Middle East over the past millenia. Geneticists generally believe that this is the reason why white people have more variability in traits like eye color and hair color and texture than most other peoples. And most people today in Latin America, Northern Africa, the Middle East, and India are already very much mixed. East Asian countries like Korea and Japan are actually notable for the homogeneity of their populations. If all white men prefered Asian women, would just as many Asian women reciporcate their preferences? Even if every white man were able to married an Asian woman, there would still be more Asian women who weren't with white men, given the huge population differential (China alone has more than four times as many people as the United States and Canada combined). So the whole talk about "genocide of asian people" is absurd! Blackcats 05:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

As an asian male, i don't have a problem w/ white male/asian female relationships. I'm just bothered by white guys think only exclusively of asian females, hence the term fetish.68.223.123.163 15:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

To all you white people complaining about this page

How did you find this page in the first place? Probably typed in asian something or other in the search engine and stumbled across this link. By even commenting about this article it gives a strong indication that you are probably obsessed with asian culture.

I found it by the Vandal Fighter tool while out on my rounds, but I'm just being a smartass here. :-) --Kizor 20:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I stumbled across the page fairly randomly - I don't reember exactly what set of links to be honest. The phrase "Asian fetish" caught my eye since I had never come across that phrase before. But I think the better question is how a lot of the pro-"Asian Fetish" theory people found this page. I did some research, and I think I may have found the answer. I will post it shortly below.... Blackcats 04:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________

OneViewHere: I don't think people here are understanding the topic correctly. This is not just about "preferences". It's about the social and racial dynamics that may contribute to those preferences. That is what is not being addressed in these conversations and that is what the Asian Fetish article attempts to explain.

I am white, but every female with whom I have had a romantic relationship (including my current fiancee) has been Japanese, Korean, or Chinese. This isn't due to any particular attraction, I feel, but rather my focus of study in school (Asian history) and home (I live in Japan). If 80-90% of women you come upon are Asian and you have no particular preference regarding ethnicity, isn't it only natural that you would fall in love with an Asian person?

I also think something should be said about the discrimination that such couples might feel due to the assumption others have of the fetish. If anybody criticizes me for my relationship because that person feels it came about due to racial factors rather than actual love, I would find that offensive and racist. Smoove K 04:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, in response to both you and Blackcats, this is again another disagreement of definitions. The explanation usually put forth by these so-called proponents of Asian fetish theory is that the definition of "actual love" itself usually involves racial factors. That is, "actual love is what happens between a woman and a Western man," which, if you take a look at love stories in Western media, is actually not that far from the truth.

The real question should be, if the definition of actual love does involve racial factors (and you know, it's certainly debatable whether it actually does), then is using that definition offensive and racist? The answer there is, probably not, but it certainly doesn't make Asian men feel very happy.

Hope that explains the position a little better. --Wzhao553 18:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Campaign by activists at modelminority.com to use Wikipedia as a mouthpiece for their POV

I had noticed that a lot of the citations in the article pointed to pages at modelminority.com, so I did a little research and here's what I found. It's pretty clear that this article was started by activists from that site at that they have been mounting a steady campaign to maintain its bias. Here are a couple of links:

http://www.modelminority.com/article1056.html

This one shows someone with the sn wzhao553 (the same exact sn as the newly registered user here) commenting on more content which should be added to this article.

The second link is more telling. I wasn't able to get to a page on their site where this discussion was taking place, but it may have been in a members only section or the page may have been removed. But google had one very revealing sentence cached:

Our Wikipedia "Asian Fetish" article under attack. [3]

This reveals a couple of things. One - the fact that they called it "our" article makes it clear that it was an article which they had written in order to advance their agenda. And also that they viewed all attempts to bring some neutrality and balance to the article as an "attack."

Now while I think that activists have a place in Wikipedia, in terms of making sure that their POV is fairly presented, that's very different than trying to write one-sided articles and make sure that they stay that way. And I also feel that it's rather disingenuous for activists to act as though they're working for neutrality when in fact their group, with its own ideology and agenda, has been conspiring to use Wikipedia to advance its goals. And it'd be one thing if they felt that there were articles that were biased against their perspective or if they felt that their prespective wasn't being adaquately presented in relevant articles (note I said presented, not asserted), but working to make and maintain one-sided and rhetorical articles is something very different.

I'm affraid that these sorts of problems are destined to become more and more pervasive within Wikipedia as it continues to grow. Its articles are now quite often in the top ten of google searches, and often the first three or the very first one. This means that Wikipedia articles can have a huge impact on how controversial issues are viewed by the general public, and more and more people are realizing this.

For every case like this one, where they leave evidence on the internet for everyone to find, how many other organizations (political, nationalist, religious, etc.) and businesses are savy enough to avoid leaving such an easy to find trail? Or even if they do leave that sort of trail, how many of them are actually gonna be found? At what point will those Wikipedia editors working in good faith to maintain and build a quality encyclopedia become the minority, as it becomes more and more of a contest of which organization can get the most volunteers (or even paid PR staff) to spend the most time editing Wikipedia? And how many of them will be able to manipulate their way through the Wikipedia process even to the point of becoming administrators? These are all questions that those who truely believe in Wikipdia's ideals will have to continue to answer in the coming years... Blackcats 05:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Very well-said. Point all of them to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. No one owns an article here; if somebody doesn't like that, they should start their own wiki! Thank you for bringing that up; I wasn't aware of that. (On their site, I had only read the blog entries cited in this article.) Though it doesn't surprise me at all that they'd be saying that sort of thing, and we should look at any other links they add to this article as link spam. The fact that you have to be a member just to view anything in the forum means they're a pretty exclusive club anyway; most forums at least let you view the list of topics and the posts without having to log in. However, I did find other references to Wikipedia on their site, one of which mentioned "help in changing the wikipedia article back". --Idont Havaname 06:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

________________________________________

OneViewHere: This is a silly argument. We are all "activists" for our own point of view. In regards to the users at modelminority.com, they are a group of people who share the same views because they are coming from the same place: ie, Asians who are the VICTIMS of Asian fetish. I could just as easily conversely say that the "activists" who are attempting to change this article are exactly the kind of people the article refers to: ie, white men who are dating or attracted to Asian women due to cultural and racial stereotypes. And in fact, several of the white users here have admitted to being in relationships with Asian women. So who are the "activists", hmmm?

One could also argue that unless you are Asian, you really have no frame of reference to know what it is we Asians are talking about when we talk about Asian fetish. How can you talk about racism if you have never been a victim of racism? It would be akin to a bunch of men writing an article on what it is like to undergo an abortion. You have never experienced it, you have no frame of reference for it and you simply cannot relate to it. So it's no suprise that there are groups of Asians out there with a shared purpose and shared viewpoint that support the text of this article the way it is. Big surprise there! If you want to call that activism, then go ahead.

"One could also argue that unless you are Asian, you really have no frame of reference to know what it is we Asians are talking about when we talk about Asian fetish." You're in deed right that one could argue that, but I, along with leading epistemologists like Susan Haack, would strongly disagree with that sort of standpoint theory. The men writing the article about abortion would have the same sources to draw on as women who had not had an abortion - published books and articles. And according to Wikipedia policy (WP:NOR), those are the only sources that should be drawn on - not direct personal experiences. If you have direct personal experiences you want to share with the world then try to get them published in a noteworthy way. They can then be cited by Wikipedia authors. Direct personal experiences can indeed convey valuable knowledge to others, but we must also keep in mind each individual's subjectivity and weigh them against the experiences that others have recounted and more objective data.

Furthermore, people who engage in identity politics often give a distorted view of who actually has direct experience. For example, would a female Asian American college student from an affluent Chicago suburb be a natural expert on the experiences of prostitutes in the local Chinatown? What would give her that expertise? Her common ancestry and skin tone? Her X chromosome or the various alleles they have in common that make them both appear Asian? I would think that a White gay male prostitute from New Orleans would likely have a much better natural understanding.

Finally, to address your first paragraph and the overall tone of your comments, what strikes me the most about them is the circular reasoning. Your premise - that people are being victimized by a fetish - is stated as if it were already proven true, in the course of your attempt to prove that it's true. In reality, those sorts of assertions are hotly conested and Wikipedia needs to give both sides a fair hearing. And the fact that some people had a natural motivation to respond to your extream POV, if your bigotry directly slandered them or their relationships or their friends, in no way justifies equating their attempt to bring balance with your cabal's attempt to create and maintain a one-sided article here. Blackcats 05:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________________________________

OneViewHere:

Rely on "published books and articles"? I thought we had already addressed the fact that there is an inherent bias in trying to quote sources from a western point of view. How many studies do you think there are out there that prove that blacks are harassed by cops? If you ask white people if cops unfairly harass black people then most white people will say no, yet if you ask Black Americans the same questions the majority of them will say "yes".

What I don't understand is, what is it about this article that you are against? Are you saying that Asian Fetishm DOESN'T exist? I and other Asian people have direct experiences that say it does exist. Does this article attempt to stereotype ALL such relationships as being the result of fetishes? No it doesn't. So what is your objection? This article only applies to certain types of people, so the only reason why you would be objecting to it is if YOU FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY.

The article clearly states the phenomenon of fetishm and offers critisms of itself as well. It is completely fair in that it doesn't attempt to stereotype all such relationships and it offers contrasting views.

And now we see that there are users here who are going to other sites and quoting extremist remarks made by others. What in the world does that have to do with the validity of the article? Hell, I could look up an article about Aslan the Lion in the Chronicles of Narnia and then go to a fundamentalist Christian web site and quote some extremist remarks too. Does that diminish the importance of CS Lewis's novel? The article should stand on it's own. Bringing in outside comments just proves that you cannot criticize the article on its own merits. You are trying to "get inside the heads" of the people you think support this article. Well, we don't all think alike and that in itself is just another form of racism. Thanks for demonstrating what we are trying to fight against.

You did? Even if so, what is in our policies has to be followed on this site.

WP:NOR is an attempt to make sure that our articles are of decent quality and are not written as rants, new theories that no one has heard of, or opinion pieces. By citing sources from a wide range of viewpoints, we help establish the notability of the subject, and furthermore we help establish Wikipedia's credibility in handling the topic. I've been in university classes in which the professors did advocate using Wikipedia as source material (albeit, technical classes), and I've been in humanities classes where the professors brought up the "Anyone can post anything there, so it's all junk" argument (see Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great). In fact, we have a Forum for Encyclopedic Standards, whose primary purpose is to make sure we do get a wide range of credible sources (regardless of their POV) to therefore ensure that the articles here are accurate, verifiable, neutral, and objective, among other things.

Applying this to your point about the racial profiling phenomenon, this means that in that article we would need to cite sources written by people who do and who don't agree that arresting disproportionate numbers of blacks/Arabs/etc. isn't justified. For a while, this article cited most of its sources from ModelMinority.com. This in itself is biased. Removing all (or most) references to sources on any side of an argument does not help the article become neutral at all.

Don't get me wrong, there is no conspiracy here to keep your point of view from being represented in this article, but if an article has no sources, or a set of sources skewed toward one side of an argument, then that makes our coverage of the issue in question inherently biased. This is what we should be trying to fight against, with regards to this article. --Idont Havaname 03:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________________________

OneViewHere: The articles from ModelMinority.com are from a variety of different sources themselves. They are not written by members of that forum, but rather they are reprints of news stories and articles from around the world. So it's a little disengenous to say that they are "all from one source".

That's a point well-noted, but even still it should be possible to find those articles on more than one website. What I mean is that we shouldn't be taking a large percentage of our links from one website. Wikipedia:External links warns against doing this. For example, and not trying to get off on a tangent (just an illustration of what I'm saying), I've written most of the article on Alexander Semin myself, including citing the sources. However, I still cite a wide variety of sources in the interest of NPOV and to counter systemic bias. I could just cite everything from ESPN or one newspaper, which has covered the story extensively, but instead the article has sources from the Washington Post, Russian news websites, Canadian sites, and so on. --Idont Havaname 15:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

_________________________________________

OneViewHere: Ok, so would it be better if the links just went to the same articles from their original sources rather than from that web site? I agree that having all of the links go to one site can give the impression of a limited point of view, but we could just as easily track down the original articles and link to those. It would amount to the same thing. I think you are splitting hairs here. If the articles were all written by one person or the same group of individuals then you would have a point. Otherwise all we're really talking about here is linking to the SAME information but just from a different URL. _______________________________________________________________________________________

---

BugMeNot.com has logins for ModelMinority.org and this forum thread reads as follows:

WhoCares

Joined: 06 Aug 2005

Posts: 114

PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 4:04 am Post subject: Some Help changing the wikipedia article back :Reply with quote

Just wanted everyone to know that some kike, "Blackcats" has announced he is about to majorly revise :the article. If anyone still cares, please help me to defend this article, I have finals comming up :in a week, but by Dec. 9 I should be able to dedicate a lot more time to this.

ehmsol

Joined: 23 Mar 2005

Posts: 161

Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:02 am Post subject: Reply with quote

which article ?

WhoCares

Joined: 06 Aug 2005

Posts: 114

PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:51 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_fetish

I am told a major overhaul will occur this winter break. But if anyone has anything interesting to :add, go ahead. I'm currently discussing things with the one guy Black somethign or toher, he's a :Jew. And the other guy, Iamnot.. somethign.

Fighting racism with racism is always the best method, right? --202.58.86.3 02:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for getting on their forum and copying that thread here. People often talk about how Asian Americans have assimilated so well the larger culure that they're now well represented in just about every subculture and cultural tendency. Sadly it now seems that for some that includes the emulation of white supremacists... Blackcats 04:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it interesting that Blackcats would call certain people bigots? The fact is BLackcats, any person who has looked at the conversation would note maybe one thing (Me calling you a Jew, which is what you are) as even remotely "bigoted."

Since the totality of our conversations have been you forwarding your ideas on why your correct, and me showing how your ideas have no base in explaining the phenomenon... then you suddently ignnoring the majority of those.

Also are you people so sensitive to "racism" that you immedaitly jump on the labelling of someone as a "Jew" yet ignore the obvious bias against Asians? Maybe we should look at someone else when labeling bigots on this discussion.

You also know that throwing words like "Extremist" "racist" "bigots" into discussions is a common tactic "PC" people use right ? Yet another example of your 'high talk' on your distate for "PCness" yet your bigotery on the subject in practice.

Oh one other thing, White superamist are angry with the world because they couldn't exterminate everyone in it other then themselves. Asians and other minorities are angry because they experience shit from people everyday.... So the difference is one anger is justified while the other is obviouslly not. But I'm sure an intelligent person such as yourself could figure that one out. SillyAlgebraist 07:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

SillyAlgebraist posted the comments above and then deleted them. It's pretty clear why, as it was pretty much a tacit admission that the bigotted post at modelminority.com was in fact made by him. That said, I'll respond to a few of his points...

"Also are you people so sensitive to "racism" that you immedaitly jump on the labelling of someone as a "Jew" yet ignore the obvious bias against Asians?"

It's true that there are some people who make charges of anti-semitism rather capriciously, thereby making real cases like this one be taken less seriously. But if you knew anything about me, then you'd know that I don't make such allegations without good reason.

The fact that I'm of Jewish (and Italian) descent had no bearing on the issue at hand, and yet you repeadidly brought it up and even used ethnic slurs like "kike." At first I thought you were maybe just doing that to see if you could get my goat and provoke me into making a racist respose (which I didn't), but then I saw that you used the same kind of talk on your members only forum which you probably thought that I wouldn't be reading. Also, the fact that you felt comfortable to make such ethnic slurs there indicates to me that bigotry against any non-Asian people is likely generally accepted at the modelminority.com forums. This, along with other stuff I've seen here, leads me to beleive that many people at that site are extreamist, in that they've gone beyond the site's stated goal of "Asian American Empowerment" and crossed the line to Asian-supremacism. I think this sort of thing often tends to happen with identity politics, from feminism to nationalism to religion-based politics, which is one of the reason I tend to oppose that sort of thing.

"So the difference is one anger is justified while the other is obviouslly not."

Again, circular reasoning. Your anger is supposedly justified in the arguement because of your alleged grievences, but the argument is about the existence and severity of those supposed grievences. Asian Americans are (on average) more well educated and prosperous than European Americans. Asian Americans are over-represented at American universities without affirmative action (AI actually lowers Asian enrollment). Asian Americans also have the advantage that few other American minorities have in that if they succead in accademics or business they're not usually labled as a "successful Asian American," they're just seen as a successful person (who happens to be Asian). This is a position most racial minorities would envy. This is probably an important reason why there are so few Asian-American (ethnic-based) agitators compared with most other minority groups. And why the "model-minority" label that you guys hate so much isn't so inaccurate, when you indeed represent a model that other minorities would like to emulate.

But at any rate, even if you did have some real grievence, which most people can make at least somewhat of a case for, that still does not justify bigotry! Blackcats 06:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I deleted my statements cause I didn't want to engage in an arguemnt until after I have completed my work for the week. I wrote those statmeents on a quick reaction. You'll get my responses soon enough. I still think its very interesting that you have not as of yet responded to anything I have said and by the way it is rather obvious you have an agenda to change this article into a whitewash piece. Further, I especially liked your sob story about your obvouslly pathetic and asiaphile friend above. I've heard many similiar "misundestood" cases.... Again, a very appropriate response will be given to you in due time

Oh by the way, isn't "kike" just a word? Like "chink" After-all some promenint Jews in the entertainment media have openly argued that using the word "chink" should not be villified. I don't have much of a problem in that case, so long as I can utilize "kike."

SillyAlgebraist 03:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I think it's really funny that OneViewHere claims to have the better perspective on this simply by being Asian, because as I understand, an Asian fetish involves white people just as much as it does Asians. In fact, one could argue it involves them more, as they are the ones who 'possess' the Asian fetish, so to speak. No perspective is given from the white standpoint to try to explain what it is that attracts them to Asians or how THEY are perceived by THEIR own culture is a result. The whole article as it is now should be renamed to "How Asians Perceive Themselves to be Affected by the Asian Fetish". Not only does he claim that his race gives him absolute authority over this article, but also dismisses any Western published sources - that is, any sources that differ from his opinion - as 'biased' (though I suspect he has not laid eyes upon a single one). A bit self-righteous? Maybe.

Holy Cow

After the above, I'm almost of a mind to put this article to VfD, because it really is hopeless. Opinions? --Orborde 01:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I highly doubt anyone would necessarily want it deleted, just because the topic is so inherently controversial... I mean, you've seen how many people have stopped by this talk page in the last few months. If the topic of this article were non-notable, then it would not be attracting this kind of attention. There are 504,000 Google results for "Asian fetish"; albeit, all but around 15,000 are filtered out if you set SafeSearch all the way up. So people have heard of it, even if only mainly in the pr0n world. Also, the fact that there have been academic papers written about this also means this article likely would not be deleted.

The following are two misconceptions that people have at WP:AfD (formerly known as WP:VfD). First, you should not use AfD for cleaning up an article, or for wanting to delete an article and start over (unless the article is patent nonsense; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Lawrence was a recent case of that). Second, lack of neutrality is not an excuse to delete. Take race and intelligence, for example. That's a very hot issue among psychologists, and it's nearly impossible to write about it from a neutral point of view; it's highly likely that readers from most, if not all, races will see it and find something in the article that they would think is biased against them in some way. However, when it went on AfD, the result was overwhelmingly to keep it. For those two reasons, if I were you I would not AfD this article. The workload for the admins that decide consensus on AfDs is staggering anyway, since there are over 1000 AfD nominations per week most of the time. --Idont Havaname 04:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The article is indeed a mess, but I have to agree with I.H. that AFD isn't appropriate. Some moving and forking may be in order though. When I get more time, I'm gonna try and do some more research and add in more opposing view points for balance... Blackcats 06:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The best thing to do is not delete this article since it does contain a lot of information that is valid. The problem is that it is convoluted and needs better organization. I've seen in similar cases, the creation of a sandbox or Asian fetish/Workshop article to start rebuilding a new article from existing material one point at a time. That would be the most intelligent thing to do right now, and everyone here should encourage eachother to put the racism behind us and keep an open mind for the gretest good of learning about and understanding the topic. --203.162.27.200 15:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yellow Peril and other sections

I don't see the need for the "Yellow Peril", "Model Minority", or "Negative Stereotypes" sections. They're relevant to a larger discussion of anti-Asian racism but not to an article meant to be specific in focus. Nowhere in those sections is it even attempted to explicitly demonstrate why they are relevant; the absurd result of including them is that the majority of the article's text doesn't directly discuss Asian Fetish. It would be better to briefly mention them, explain their relevance, and provide external links or links to other Wiki entries.

Furthermore the article doesn't present the strongest arguments of critics of the theory and, when it does mention them, it immediately follows with a rebuttal or an elaboration on the theory. This creates a point-counterpoint "Crossfire" atmosphere that is unprofessional and doesn't belong in a Wikipedia entry.

I also wonder about some of references cited at the bottom. "De Colors Means All Of Us" is about Latina activism; I don't see how it can be relevant.ThreeAnswers 09:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I very much agree. It would be a good idea to move/merge any relevant content there to other articles. You're also right that the criticisms need to be better presented in the article. I'll have more time to work on that in about a week when the semester ends... Blackcats 06:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________________________________

OneViewHere:

Actually, those sections on yellow peril, model minority, etc. are completely relevant to the article. The reason being that Asian Fetishm at its core is about RACIAL STEREOTYPES. It's about an expected set of behaviors and attributes that are assumed due to your race. The yellow peril phenomenon helped created the current sexual stereotypes of Asians by portraying Asian women as hypersexual and exotic sluts while portraying Asian men as assexual deviants. How is that NOT critical to the discussion of Asian Fetishm? Those topics have helped CREATE the Asian Fetish for many westerners, so I don't see how it is not related.

After checking a bit, I am pretty sure that OneViewHere has not yet been registered as a Wikipedia username. Please register it (on the top right hand corner of every wiki page) and sign your comments properly, so that your comments will carry more weight in future discussions. --Wzhao553 22:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

While personally I don't see them as that related, I agree that there should be some mention of them. The article would be incomplete without making the strongest argument possible for the Asian Fetish theory, and obviously that can only be done by referencing the stereotypes. My point is that, as written, those sections make up the bulk of the article but assume that the connection will be obvious to the reader. There are already perfectly good pages for model minority and yellow peril; there's no need to reproduce so much of that material here. The average reader, perhaps coming to these issues for the first time, is going to be confused by the sudden shift in focus to the Yellow Peril myth, the extended discussion of average heights in Asia, etc. ThreeAnswers 12:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________

OneViewHere: I changed the headers for the "external links" section. It originally said "Supporting the "Asian fetish" theory, and/or taking a more sinister view on interracial relationships." <----that's an inherently biased statement and is inaccurate as well. You cannot categorize one side's view as "sinister" and the other side as "positive". Also, if you think this article is against interracial relationships in general or IR relationships between whites and asians, then you do not comprehend the article at all. This article is NOT about being against interracial relationships.

I think you may not understand what "sinister view" means. It doesn't mean that there's anything sinister about your view, but rather it means that you view something as being sinister. For example, I have a very sinister view of Nazism. That doesn't meant that there's anything sinister about me feeling that way! At any rate, (at least from the information we have), many if not most of the people supporting the theory of there being a pervasive "Asian fetish" in western societies tend to think that interracial relationships are often sinister in nature or have sinister motives. The whole issue is a little ambiguous in terms of what terminology is used though - hence the "and/or" and the generally akward construction. If someone can think of something better that covers all the bases then by all means change it. Blackcats 18:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

OneViewHere: That's a rather confusing distinction to make. I think the bias inherent in that term is obvious to all. The term "sinister" is more appropriate in talking about "evil motives", horror movies, men with long moustaches tying women to the railroad tracks, etc. It has no business being used in this article to refer to links. Why can't you just leave the link titles as they are? Just have the first set of links be in support of the Asian Fetish Theory and have the 2nd set be Opposing that view. It simplifies things and doesn't impart any particular point-of-view on the matter. The term "sinister" is an inherently loaded and biased term and has no place in this discussion. I am reverting the titles back. If you want to use colorful descripters like that then you are imparting your own meanings to this discussion. You cannot classify one side as being "sinister" and the other side as being "positive" and claim that the titles are impartial.

It's not confusing at all - I think you still just don't get it! "The term "sinister" is more appropriate in talking about "evil motives"..." You're right, that is exactly what "sinister" means. But what you don't seem to understand is that the term "sinister views" pretty much always describes the object of the views and not the subject of the views or the views themselves. For example, if one said that "Blackcats has a sinister view of Nazis," this would not mean that "Blackcats is sinister" or that "Blackcats's viewpoint is sinister." It would mean that "Blackcats views Nazis as being sinister." Blackcats 18:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

OneViewHere: I think you're the one who doesn't get it. If you're using the term "sinister" to refer to the people who have an Asian fetish, then why use it to label links that are in support of the Asian Fetish theory? You're not making a clear distinction. All people see is that a negative term is being used for links that support one point of view while the term "positive" is being used to describe the opposite POV. Why use the term "sinister" at all? You really haven't explained why there is a need to include this term in the article to begin with. Readers don't need to be "told" that something is sinister and that something is positive. They need to come to that conclusion themselves.

Response to "OneViewHere:" - why don't you do us all a favor and get a user name. That way we'll all know that we're talking with the same person. You seemed pretty intelligent in most of your previous posts (though I generally disagreed with them). Now I'm afraid someone may be inpersonating you and acting unintelligent in order to try and make you look bad... Blackcats 07:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

OneViewHere: I have registered my name. I'm just not familiar with HTML code to know how to "sign" my name in these pages. In regards to my original comments, I really think using the term "sinister" is misleading and inaccurate, because proponents of the Asian Fetish theory don't necessarily think that all IR relationships have sinister motives, nor do all white men who date asian women have an Asian Fetish. Some do of course, and that is the dynamic that this article addresses. Bottom line: If I can be confused as to the way you labeled the links, so can anybody else. There is no reason why you need to assign a "motive" to the links. They should just state that one set of links supports the theory, while the other set of links offers a contrasting view. OneViewHere

That's correct. While there are some people advocating the theory who do take more radical stances as you have suggested (and as I've seen around the internet in various places), not all of them are like that. It would be better to leave out the "(sinister|positive) view of IR relationships" not only because of that, but also because those headers are longer than they need to be. If I am the reader, I probably just want to know who's for the theory and who's against it; if I'm looking for who stands where with regards to interracial relationships, then I would look in that article, which is linked to from this one. --Idont Havaname 00:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You can register your username by typing four ~ at the end of your message. ThreeAnswers 16:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

__________________________________________

OneViewHere: It looks like a user named "Archer7" reversed my changes almost as soon as I made them. I can only assume this person reverted the changes to promote his biased agenda, since using the word "sinister" to describe the article while using the word "positive" to describe his/her POV is inherently biased. All I did was relabel the links as "Supporting the Asian fetish theory" and "Opposing the Asian Fetish Theory.

That's a good edit, OVH. ThreeAnswers 06:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Really sorry about that, mistake when working through the recent changes. An administrator alerted me about my mistake and I can assure you I have no biased agenda. I hope that you will continue contributing to Wikipedia, and I'll try to be more careful in the future! Thanks, Archer7 22:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

More on external links sections

While I did note "and/or" in the sections, and many supporters of the theory do indeed seem to view inter-racial relationships as very sinister (one here even compared it with "genocide"), the wording was long and akward, and it seems like everyone here was wanting that removed. So I've changed the titles again... Blackcats 09:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the user who talked about "Genocide" is any more reflective of the diversity of opinion on this issue any more than a white supremecist is reflective of how white people in general view minorities. You will always have extremists for every issue but that doesn't mean their views are indicative of the whole. And to title the links section in such a way as to assume that would have been wrong. Not all liberals are "hippie-pot-smoking-liberals" and not all conservatives are "cigar-chomping fat old men", so why attempt to classify people who believe that Asian Fetishism exists in that same manner? OneViewHere 23:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Anime and Japanese Culture

I'm neither knowledgeable nor motivated enough to take this up myself, but I think that a significant portion of this article should talk about the influence of anime and the importation of Japanese culture in promoting the Asian fetish, especially in America. It would make for an especially interesting discussion because, ostensibly, it is an example of Asians themselves promoting some of the very stereotypes about Asian women that others have complained about (see Sakura Diaries, La Blue Girl, or any Hentai for that matter as an example of this).

In my experience the majority of white men who date Asian women out of a sense of fetishism are not fans of Japanese Anime. I think the main driving force in creating and perpetuating Asian Fetishism are Western Cultural stereotypes that have been around for over a 100 years. The average Vietnam war vet who slept with Vietnamese prostitutes during the Vietnam war didn't know anything about Japanese Anime. And the white mobs that lynched Chinese laborers during the gold rush and Italic textpassed the Chinese Exclusion Act didn't know anything about Japanese Anime either. Anime as far as Western awareness goes has only been around for a couple of years, while the prevailing stereotypes of "Exotic Asian Women" and "Inscrutable Asian Men" have been around for hundreds of years. OneViewHere 23:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but I was under the assumption that this article would try to cover most aspects and occurences of it, including its modern existence rather than just the historical. You make it sound as if I said that anime CAUSED the Asian fetish. If you don't know anything about anime that's fine, but others might. You're mainly focusing on older generations, but from personal experience, there's a pretty strong correlation, or at least an awareness of its influence among the college-age crowd. To summarize, I think it's a significant enough part of the MODERN incarnation of the Asian fetish that it deserves mention here. And for clarification, I'm not just talking about anime, but the mass-marketing and importation of Japanese culture into America in general. As an aside, I'm also quite surprised that Full Metal Jacket didn't make it into the alleged media perpetuation section, since it was single-handedly responsible for popularizing the phrase "me love you longtime".

You're talking about expanding the "Effects of media" section. It's on the to-do list. --Wzhao553 06:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, OneView's emotional bias in this is just staggering. What the hell does the lynchying of Asian workers have to do with the Asian Fetish? Oh wait I forgot, it's all part of a huge white conspiracy. If you want to make an article about racism against Asians, go right ahead, but don't force your thesis that they are one and the same down our throats.

Whoever you are, you need to learn more about this issue before you demonstrate your ignorance. The reason why I brought up lynchings is because it is related to the way the west viewed Asians and Asian men in particular. Asian men were seen as devious and inscrutable while Asian women were (and still are) seen as hypersexual. Asian fetishism cannot be understood unless you understand the racial stereotypes that fuel that fetishism. It was that hatred of "devious" Asian men who posed an economic challenge to the whites of the old west that led to many Chinese being lynched. And it led to the belief among many westerners that by romancing Asian women they were "saving" them from their oppressive male counterparts.

And as it is tangentally related to Asian Fetish, that is why I am talking about it HERE in the discussion forum instead of adding a comment about it in the actual article. I'm trying to educate people here. So for you to say that I am "emotionally biased" while you whine about a supposed attack on white people in general via a "great white conspiracy" shows YOUR emotional bias. You interpret this as an attack on all whites, when this is clearly not the case at all. Only someone who does not comprehend the issue at all would interpret this as a blanket attack on white people. History is history, and we must learn from it and learn how things that happened in the past tie into what we experience today in the present. OneViewHere 19:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's your theory, whereas I'm saying that there are other aspects of the Asian fetish that are not related to historical racism against Asians. The whole drive of this article is tracing a progression from the historical racism to the Asian fetish today, without offering any alternative interpretations. Putting it into a grand narrative like that already gives it an implicit bias. I'm not saying it's a blanket attack on all whites, but you're clearly incapable of separating Asian fetishism from the history of racism in general, because your whole thesis is that it IS a form of racism, which is POV and arguable. I realize that you're not going to change your view on this, nor should you necessarily, but someone else should come along and talk about the Asian fetish in modern culture and the ways in which it might NOT be tied to racism, of which what I started out with is only one example. The historical examples are relevant, yes, but their proportion in the article is largely unbalanced as compared to, say, the media section, which in my opinion is far more relevant to the phenomenon as it exists today than the lynchings of railroad workers a century ago. It's also a mystery to me why the article talks more about the stereotypes of Asian men than Asian women, since it's the latter that the fetish is mainly concerned with. I infer that you're an Asian male who feels 'victimized' by this and thus your immediate question would be 'why don't they like us?' but to others that wouldn't be the first thing that comes to mind. The more relevant question that is largely left out here is 'what attracts white men to Asian women?' - in fact, the white perspective is completely non-existent in this article. You posit the "Asian fetish" as a particular theory that Asians have come up with and, to your credit, you do include adequate criticisms and rejoinders. But you should realize that at the same time, there are plenty of whites who would acknowledge the existence of an Asian fetish but have completely different conceptions of it - some merely aesthetic, some sexual, some cultural, etc. Since bias seems almost unavoidable in an issue like this it would at least make sense to include viewpoints from both sides.

I see three reasons why men could have a specific attraction to Asians.

• Being attracted to Asians for perceived cultural attributes and stereotypes such as hypersexualization or submissiveness.
• Being attracted to Asian culture. This is tricky because there are many ways of being attracted to Asian culture; some positive, some negative, and some perhaps neutral.
• An attraction to (and not necessarily preference for) Asian features.

When I read the article I don't see these distinctions being made. I think making these distinctions clear would go a long way towards resolving this dipute. ThreeAnswers 23:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

To the anon who refuses to sign his messages: get it straight, Orientalism isn't the same as racism. Interpreting Asian fetish within the context of Orientalism is necessary from a sociological perspective, which is the POV which we will be assuming for the entirety of this article. This is the standard theory. There is nor will be any connection made in this entry between Asian fetish and racism except indirectly via Orientalism.

Second of all, I believe the "Asian American manhood," "Asian American womanhood" and "Model minority myth" sections were started by Howrealisreal, who is, as I recall, a white male. Please do not make blanket ascriptions of sections to members without good reason.

To ThreeAnswers, you are correct in that the article's discussion of attraction is very flawed, but that's because the definition and terminology provided for Asian fetish is very flawed and, in my opinion, incorrect. It needs to be fixed, but that will probably be the hardest part of editing.

Lastly, as I said earlier, the media section will be expanded in due time. However, it would still be presented in the context of modern (viz., post-colonial) Orientalism, because that is the context in which the sociological literature discusses it. --Wzhao553 08:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Addition made to section on Asian American Womanhood

I added a paragraph to this section regarding the concept of the "unmotivated Asian-White" romance, which is a prevalent stereotype in many Hollywood films where the Asian Female character instantly falls in love with the white male character at first sight. I still need to add a section to better explain how it ties into Asian Fetishism and how that engenders a belief that Asian women are approachable and willing sex partners for westerners. I also don't know how to create hyperlinks of the movies to other Wikipedia articles, -if articles on those movies referenced do exist. Let me know what you folks think. The complete text of what I added goes like this:

In "Daughter of the Dragon," the daughter of Fu Manchu lays her eyes on a British detective and instantly falls in love with him. "The Bounty" and "Come See the Paradise" also contain scenes where an Asian woman falls in love with a white man at first sight. The repetition of this conceit sends the signal that Asian women are romantically attracted to white men because they are white . It insinuates that whiteness is inherently more important than any other romantic quality and inherently more appealing than any other skin color.

OneViewHere 23:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You can link to another article by enclosing the word or phrase in [[]]. Like Fu Manchu (edit this page to see how). Also I see a lot of discussion here about how the theory could be better elaborated in the article, but comparatively little about how it can explain the thinking of those who criticize it. I think even those who passionately believe that Asian Fetish is damaging Asian-Americans should still want to have the best arguments of the theory's critics included, because otherwise the article will always be accused of bias. Wikipedia just isn't an appropriate place to try to convince the general reader of a controversal theory or point of view, but that's the feeling I get from the article as written. External links, of course, can be anything at all. ThreeAnswers 12:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I've done some very basic NPOVing of OVH's recent addition. More is still needed. I also removed one sentence - "It insinuates that whiteness is inherently more important than any other romantic quality and inherently more appealing than any other skin color." That's completely opinion and POV interpretion, so it shouldn't be included unless a specific source can be cited which had that analysis. Blackcats 06:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC

I don't believe the article should be deleted, but I do believe an RfC is in order. It would go up at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society and law --Wasabe3543 22:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)