Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Revisiting Joan Walsh's article

I was going through old copies of the page to see what sources might be useful to re-add and in what capacity. I noticed that last May Computer1200 removed the modelminority source because it was a dead link. It was a dead link. There have been concerns in the past about users of modelminority trying to push POV and other things on this article. The problem with this removal is that MM was only being used as a convenience link for the article. The article was a legit article published in the San Francisco Examiner, and you can see it has even been cited in books [1], [2] Here is the non 404 copy of the article [3]. Not usuable as a convenience link, but it can be read and it can even be cited without a link since citation doesn't require it. Given its citation in multiple books I think it would be important to discuss how we can work this back into the article.--Crossmr (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

if the article is referenced, it will be important to clearly point out that it is 21 years old. Are there any guidelines on that? Computer1200 (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If the opinion is credited to Walsh, it would be trivial to say in 1990, but the fact that it is cited in books warrants its inclusion regardless of age. If we find more good articles it would give us a snapshot of how the view on these terms was at various points in time.--Crossmr (talk) 06:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

A source on definition

While digging around some more I just found this book which talks about the origin of the term "Asiaphile" which might be quite useful for us to include. [4]. Specifically it says "The term "Asiaphile" was coined by Stephen Hay to describe those Western Critics of Modern Rationalism and materialism who searched for an alternative in Asian Intellectual traditions." While the meaning has slightly changed these days I think this original definition should be worked into the article.--Crossmr (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

offline sources, online copies

looking at this old version of the article [5], I'd like to revisit several of the old sources and see what could be useful. There are a number of offline sources presented there. Does anyone have digital copies of the sources or relevant parts of the sources we could discuss and look at?--Crossmr (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

lead and terms

Asiaphile is discussed in the article and in fact that term redirects here, further all the claims are cited. As far as the lead goes, removing the reference to it being a slang term changes the meaning and tone of lead. So does the removal of the word "strong" as well as the qualifier that it is by those of non-asian descent. All important pieces of information in the lead.--114.205.84.126 (talk) 08:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Article is very problematic

This article seems to have quite a few problems with POV and original research. The Columbia University study, while tangentially relevant, wasn't Asian-specific (it also investigated relationships involving other ethnicities). Even the fact that we have an "Asian fetish" article, but not a "Hispanic fetish", "African-American fetish", or "Caucasian fetish" article smacks of POV and possibly racial bias among Wikipedians. In my opinion, I don't see why we should have this article at all. I'm not going to nominate it for deletion myself because it's been "kept" so many times in the past, but the way it currently stands is a complete mess. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a matter of notability, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The columbia doesn't have to specifically be about asians or asian fetish to be relevant. Asian fetish is an idea/concept/theory/whatever used in many contexts to describe how some people think other people feel about something. If hispanic fetish or another kind of fetish developed a similar notability an article would be appropriate. the problem is that right now there aren't enough quality sources really discussing the term heavily enough to expand this much beyond a stub.--Crossmr (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If you doubt that most East Asian girls won't go out with blacks...then you don't know very many East Asian girls...124.33.208.179 (talk) 08:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Ayako

That study is no longer used as an important resource. It was conducted by a business major for god's sake, not a sociologist.

is it just me or is the article name offensive

fetish is attraction to non-human object

Asian people are not human? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.84.1.3 (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

There are many articles with 'offensive' titles, but that doesn't mean that their subjects do not exist in the world. (see above Crossmr's response to the section on this talk page to "Article is very problematic"). "Nigger" is an ugly and overtly offensive term, but does that mean we should turn our eyes from it, and pretend that it doesn't exist? Wikipedia isn't endorsing or promoting this term by having an article on it any more than having an article on racism promotes or endorses racism. It is just a common term used by millions, however offensive.
On the other hand, I urge editors to discuss other commonly used terms for the same subject, if such exists. It would be helpful because if offending people can be avoided, that is certainly positive. However, I am not at all certain a more desireable, and more commonly used term exists.
As to the definition of fetish, you are only partially correct. See definition #3 at the wiktionary entry for fetish. Hamamelis (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"Asian fetish" is a slang phrase (as the article acknowledges) which is used by people who can't be bothered to look up what "fetish" means. A fetish is a situation in which someone is fixated on specific non-sexual objects in a sexual way, and requires them for arousal. A Wikipedia article about a subject should not be based on the slang term for some aspects of that that subject, unless there is no other term for it. Note that the Nigger article is not about black people; it is about the word "nigger" itself, and its history. This "Asian fetish" article is not about the phrase itself, but about what it denotes; it's like a "Nigger" article being about black people of African descent.216.31.219.19 (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

And note: "asian fetish" is a strongly derogatory term used by some people to express disapproval of people who find partners outside of their own racial group, effectively equating their choice with a form of sexual deviation or dysfunction. A "fetish" is something weird, and not a legitimate basis for a relationship. 216.31.219.19 (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

redirect from asiaphile

Anglophile doesn't redirect to "English fetish", why does "Asiaphile" redirect here? I agree with the above comment that "fetish" is about a non-person object of sexual excitement. 216.66.5.44 (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Because this is race dynamics and yes, psychologists do refer to race fetishes: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/millennial-media/201104/what-is-exotic-beauty-part-ii-the-case-the-asian-fetish <--better article. This should be included.

Often whites objectify races into less than human (as in race and melanin count is an object). (See most of the slurs equate race for PoCs compared to whites as food, animals or less and the entire race, rather than a segment.). This, then disseminates into the rest of the population. Why does it not work in reverse? Who has the power?

The main problem with the Columbia study besides he's a Business Major is that he's also a white man and he's more likely to try to defend his own race rather than be objective.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you realize how bigoted, racist and offensive much of what you've just written is?2001:56A:F567:3700:CCB3:F62E:F173:54FD (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The other three names on the study are not white, and one of them is an ethnic woman, so I'm not sure how you can simply disregard it beccause one of the researchers happens to be caucasian. You imply, of course, that all white men have no possibility for doing honest, bonafide research into a subject about which they are frequently demonized. Even while they're demonized, folks like yourself demand that they have absolutely no say in how they are being characterized. It's the ugly side of post-colonial studies. On a more sinister level, it implies that caucasian males are inherently compelled to do evil things, which of course is nothing more than flat-out racism, by definition. The Columbia study has been contested at time through the years, but it remains in this article simply because there is no objective, academic reason to discount the findings. --Computer1200 (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight given to 2016 Robin Zheng Essay

There is a silly amount of content for this. I read the article and it wasn't anything worth it's own section. The entire effects section is dominated by this one source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettwardo (talk • contribs) 00:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

NPOV concerns

I flagged this article with the NPOV tag because, as I understand it, this concept of "Asian fetish" is controversial in certain respects and this article fails IMO to properly address the controversial aspects of the concept. It has always been my understanding the the concept of "Asian Fetish" has been a controversial one, particularly with certain usages of the term. The concept has been used to describe three different types of interest in Asians, 1) Non-asians finding asian women exclusively or more often then other racial groups sexually attractive (especially white men), 2) Having a sexual attraction to Asians based on Asian stereotypes (especially Asian women), 3) Having a particular interest in Asian culture, 4) Some combination of the above. It is also my understanding the type 1 and type 3 definitions of "Asian fetish" are particularly controversial. Type one is controversial because it is argued that it takes a normal beauty preference/subjective sexual attractiveness perception and tried to turn it into a fetish. Some critics argue that it is used by Asians who appose interracial relationships between Asian women and white men, to justify their view. Type 2 is less controversial since it revolves around racial stereotypes, but there is controversy over whether some non-asian people who simply find Asian women more attractive as a whole are being falsely labeled as buying into Asian stereotypes when their attraction as nothing to do with that. As to type 3, Labeling people who have a particular affinity for Japanese Anime, Asian Food, Chinese music, Asian Art, Chinese films, etc. as having a fetish is problematic many critics eyes. To fix this issue I would recommend the following: 1) Address the controversial uses of the term "Asian Fetish" in the intro. 2) Address the controversial aspects of the term in the main body more in depth. It is needs to be clear that non-asians simply finding asians more attractive on the whole then their own or other groups is not universally agreed on to be a fetish per se or a negative treat in and of itself. Second, it needs to be made clear the a love of Asian culture or a particular Asian culture such as Japanophile is universally agreed upon to be a negative treat in and of itself.

---Notcharliechaplin (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, but this does not make a lot of sense. What do you mean with "controversial term"? I think you are confusing the term with the behavior. And your last claim, that it is universally agreed upon that love for some culture is a negative trait is just bogus. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Worldwide view

The issue says it need a worldwide view. This is not possible since in Asia, people can't have this fetish because amongst Asians, it would be considered normal. Moreover, it only refers to women. Asian males are among the least popular group. --2.245.104.86 (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed on the worldwide view statement. This has American social issues and conception of race all over it. 2001:56A:F567:3700:CCB3:F62E:F173:54FD (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

"Asian males are among the least popular group." Um, not within the white gay community. Plenty of fetishization going on there. Why not add from what I linked? And to the second respondent, so what? The US came up with the civil rights movement. And given the political climate in the UK now, you know, with Brexit, that seems like a valuable vantage point. Unless you're a conservative which I suspect you might be.--A21sauce (talk) 01:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Another argument about POV that doesn't make a lot of sense. If you can't have an Asian fetish because you're Asian, that doesn't mean that therefore this article doesn't present a worldwide view. Now, it may well be true that this fetish has a particular resonance in the US, given the last 100 years or so of history--that is a decent argument, and I looked at the sources (and some sources for the sources), which are overwhelmingly by US scholars and about Asian women from the US point of view and Asian-American women. So I'm inclined to let that tag stand. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

No mention of the K-Pop phenomenon with "Yellow Fever" for Asian guys?

Hi!

I noticed that this article suggests that the "Asian fetish" or "Yellow Fever" only shows itself as an attraction for Asian females, and does for some reason not mention the international phenomenon that appeared some decade or so consisting of women - and some guys too - having the "fever" for Asian guys? After all, given that there are websites dedicated to both the admiration of K-pop guys as well as Asian guys in general on the Web, including at least one dating website for non-Asian women seeking Asian men, the "fever" also for Asian guys is apparently a very real phenomenon - albeit seemingly less widespread - and do as such qualify for at least mentioning it.

Just thought I would at least bring it up.^^ - Okama-San (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Interesting cultural question. You want to know whether it is appropriate to include that in the article.. It would depend on whether it's classified as an asian fetish.. The label is ORIGINALLY a derogatory term in which the object of the fetish is to be "used" and discarded. And to fuel the superiority complex of merely having white privilege. Some guys are even neo nazis who have been known to have asian fetish. They are full of hubris and typically regard non white culture disrespectfully.

On the other hand, the white K-pop fans appear to fall in hopeless romantic love and care about their "oppas". They call them "idols", buy expensive concert tickets some can barely afford, and babble on about how talented and hard working they are. They respect them. Those girls also commonly have a genuine interest and deep respect to east asian culture. Bear in mind that there are gay and straight white guys who are like that too.

Lastly, it's only because of the Internet that these younger generations of western girls got exposed to kpop. And so the use of widely established Labels have already been used by them via social media online..They say they got the "thirst" and call the really obsessive fans as "sasaeng". But they never self refer to themselves in having an asian fetish. They respect their "idols" too much to willingly adopt that term.

But it's also complex as there have been an increase in white and hispanic women who are kpop fans and date an asian guy. Those women however have been criticised for only dating their boyfriend because of his race. They are already called weaboos, koreaboo, etc but do modern society widely call those girls as having the asian fetish?

Wikipedia is not about forming our own presumed consensus, but being aware of society and objectively documenting all Impartial info from strong reliable sources . If many journalistic reports in the world now calls these types of girls, who are kpop fans, and join niche dating sites to get an Asian boyfriend or go to Bali, Indonesia to deliberately have a fling with a Kuta cowboy. That they have an Asian fetish.. Then we would include them in.

So far, I have never recalled to have read an article that derogatorily states kpop fans as having a creepy asian fetish...So i don't think it currently qualifies given that it's less regarded as a degrading asian fetish and much more of a hopelessly romantic fixation with east Asian guy .

120.18.231.71 (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

don't think it is applicable. I have yet to see any reputable source linking adoration of K-pop boy bands to any racial fetish. I don't think its significantly different from people who idolized the Beatles, Elvis Presley, or Justin Bieber Vithias (talk) 07:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Removing biases

@Sarah mclaflen98: Please provide your rationale for removal of content here. I believe in retaining those references and sections, as they provide a variety of sources with valid reasoning. However, I do believe the wording in that section is a little strange, and could do with altering. (ie "white men" to "Caucasian men") puggo (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Legitimacy and Neutrality of Article

As of the 20th of September, 2019, the legitimacy and neutrality of this article are in dispute.

As previous comments have mentioned, the article seems to be a personal diatribe directed against a particular demographic.

The article is under-sourced and/or poorly sourced and is presenting the POV of the editors in an intentionally persuasive manner.

The contents of the article may be challenged in due time. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

This Entire Article Is Racist

I'm a White male, and probably the only White guy on wiki to bother commenting on this article. The entire premise of this article is racist and bigoted against White males. If this was directed at any other race it would be glaringly racist. Is it a fetish when Hispanic women prefer White men over Hispanic men? Is that "White fever?" It's also worth noting that the same data which shows White men preferring Asian women on dating apps also shows Asian women having strong preferences for White males! Is that a fetish as well!?

This article should be banished to the trash bin of wiki.

Further, have any of you people ever considered that men have preferences for healthy weights in female partners because of the increased fertility and lower pregnancy complication rates? There is a biological reason why heterosexual men find healthy weight women more attractive. So perhaps White men preferring Asian women in the population data might be due to the fact that Asian women have the lowest incidence of obesity by race?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.61.6.71 (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2018‎ (UTC)

I agree. Moreover it is overly stupid: it's dumb to argue that if you like far easteners or their culture you have a fetish. It's like if those who wrote the article wanted to shame people into NOT liking asians. 93.36.190.141 (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

This article aims to give an overview of a larger issue. Even if it weren't true, the fact that many people speak about it makes it a valid article. Fortunately for the article's sake, this is a real issue that has roots in colonialism and war. puggo (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'm a white guy and I think you're both wrong. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

There are white dudes who disrespectfully see Asian women as a cheap substitute for white women. They prowl around in the poorer regions of Asia and have creepy personalities like mocking their "me love you long time" accents, seeing them as objects for their full gratification, which makes some asian women uncomfortable and most importantly, a fetish is what you use to "get off" and the Asian woman or object of fetish, doesn't necessarily have to be beautiful to be fetishised. Men will drop their standards considerably when looking for a one night stand.. Additionally some white nerdy guys are not very popular with white women so they deliberately seek out asian women with lower status. And they are given the stigma of being "losers" who can't score with attractive white women and needs to instead date Asians only.. Of course there are men who are not like that and their attitude is not the same thing as having an "Asian fetish". They respect their asian partners. But the white men who do have that personality are the ones described in this article. Perhaps this is a good reason to discuss amd include a section in this article that not all white guys disrespect asian women and genuinely love them and sees them as their social equals. And not as someone who will cook, clean and be their submissive asian housewife. And that the stigma is unfair on guys who do not qualify for the "yellow fetish" test.

120.18.231.71 (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

This is the equivalent of saying "All Americans are racists but only the Republicans". If the article needs a disclaimer, then it has been written incorrectly or inappropriately. As such, I believe that the entire article needs to be rewritten. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I would like to point out that if you search for other racist terms like "jungle fever" there aren't pages dedicated to it, it redirects to "racial fetishism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.102.96.3 (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the article is written as a polemic and so fails WP:NPOV. These are some examples: (1) The first sentence of the lead implies that those with an "obsession" for asian people, cultures, or things is inherently associated with objectification of asian people. There's no citation. (2) Under Origins section, we are told Asian media makes women to be "seen as objects rather than humans" with no qualifications and no citation. (3) Under Effects section the article states Asian women "are forced to cope with constant doubt" with no hedging terms at all. This is a rather strong phrasing. Shouldn't it be "Some Asian women may occasionally doubt..."? (4) Stereotyping of white males, and appropriation of statements about those with 'yellow fever' to white males in general, giving the article a seemingly-feminist POV: "Asian women are viewed by white men as...", "A white woman is seen by white men to lack...", "..the white Westerner’s image of the Asian woman.", "White men often racialize Asian women as...", "These interviews show that white men believe...". (5) The bizarre terms "overly feminized" and "over feminized". Was this the editor's subjective assessment? Shouldn't it say something like "highly feminine"? I don't normally read/edit outside biology-related articles, so this isn't my expertise. But when I saw this article, I just couldn't see it as anything other than a diatribe against the subject it describes. Ypna (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

You've made some good points, Ypna. I'd be quite happy with the changes you suggest. Would you like to edit the article or would you prefer someone else to do it? - Polly Tunnel (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Polly Tunnel I'm glad you agree. I'll go ahead and make some changes now, but any help to bring this article into academic standard would be great. Ypna (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, done. I think it could still use more overhauling, but I've gone through and reworded some of the most egregious sentences. Ypna (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all the improvements you've made, Ypna. I think the article has a history of being edited as a student project and that may have led to its essay-like style. I agree that it still needs more work – hopefully it will get some attention from other experienced editors like yourself. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism -- Fake Images

This image has been repeatedly added to this article and removed:

Chinatown burlesque performer in Melbourne, 1930s

It has been confirmed to be fake.

https://www.instagram.com/scarlettsohungson/

The image has been created as part of an intentional disinformation scheme. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: For clarification, although this image might be a historically accurate depiction of a historical individual or archetype, I do believe that the caption is heavily misleading. The caption reads "Chinatown burlesque performer in Melbourne, 1930s". However, since the image is 100% guaranteed to be fake (it is essentially a cosplay), then this means that the caption is heavily inaccurate. It could be rewritten to read "An artist's impression (from the 2010s) of a Chinatown burlesque performer in 1930s Melbourne". A clear indication that the image is an artist's impression will allow it to remain in the article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

User: Tmanyrath

Hi Tmanyrath, I just reviewed your article. Overall you did a good job. Only one point that I think you should mention in your effect paragraph was how does it effects Asian girl's personality after they are being portrayed in a certain way? Shahzia Perveen (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed article split

It is proposed that this article be split into "Asian cultural fetish" and "Asian sexual fetish".

In the introduction of the article, it is said that the term "Asian fetish" refers to "a pronounced interest in Asian people, Asian cultures, or things of Asian origin by those of non-Asian descent".

However, the majority of the body of the article discusses primarily the concept of an Asian sexual fetish, which is not even mentioned in the introductory sentence.

As such, the article should probably be rewritten and should be explicitly indicated as specifically focusing on the concept of an Asian sexual fetish. A new article should be created for the concept of an Asian cultural fetish if such an article doesn't already exist. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Couldn't you or someone else just add the corresponding text? Then I feel it'd make more sense to discuss the matter of splitting it. Doing so now is too premature. puggo (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Most of the sources I've looked at don't seem to use the expressions Asian cultural fetish and Asian sexual fetish. They simply use the term Asian fetish, whichever they are referring to. Hence in terms of article titling, we probably ought to use brackets for the qualifiers instead i.e. "Asian fetish (cultural)" and "Asian fetish (sexual)". I'm also concerned that, as has been pointed out, "the majority of the body of the article discusses primarily the concept of an Asian sexual fetish". Unless a significant number of other sources are forthcoming on the subject of an Asian cultural fetish, it's likely that any stand-alone article on that subject would remain a stub until it was eventually re-absorbed. I suspect if a permanent separation of the two subjects is desired, we would do better moving content about an Asian cultural fetish into articles such as Stereotypes of East Asians in the United States. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, the term "fetish" has three main definitions. The oldest definition is "(noun) an inanimate object worshipped for its supposed magical powers or because it is considered to be inhabited by a spirit.". Meanwhile, a more modern definition is "(noun) a form of sexual desire in which gratification is linked to an abnormal degree to a particular object, item of clothing, part of the body, etc."; when the term "fetish" is being used in this sense, it is advisable to use the descriptor "sexual" (i.e. "sexual fetish"). The third and even more modern definition is "(noun) an excessive and irrational devotion or commitment to a particular thing."; this definition seems to have been derived from the previous "sexual fetish" definition. /// The term "Asian fetish" can have any one of these three meanings; it can either mean "Asian spiritual fetish", "Asian sexual fetish", or "Asian cultural fetish". The assumed definition is the first; since this article primarily deals with the sexual lens, the title should be changed to "Asian sexual fetish". The page "Asian cultural fetish" likely doesn't need to be created. Note that this page, "Sexual fetishism", which is related to "Asian fetish", is titled "Sexual fetishism", rather than "Fetishism (sexual)". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree, they are different phenomena. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Pseudo-academism at its silliest. No evidence that the things claimed in article are real.

East and Southeast Asian women everywhere outside of Asia do very well in the dating market, but there is zero evidence that this success comes from Orientalism or stereotypes.

This is the typical academic pattern of noticing a race-specific phenomenon and building a mountain of publications about it on the false premise that there must be an odious cultural reason or "social construct" behind it. There are very obvious biological and behavioral differences that are more than sufficient to explain this "fetish".

Also, the more common the preference the less it can be considered a fetish.

The upshot for the article is that evidence should be located and included, or the article WP:TNT-ed. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 07:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you refer to sexual selection favoring genetic diversity, but this article's scope seems to be more about popular culture and sociology than about biology. I'm not contesting that such topics don't attract a lot of conflicting popular literature or that the article could be improved. "Fetish" could very well be misapplied but popular culture often produces ridiculous names. If you believe that it's not the WP:COMMONNAME, a rename discussion is possible. As an administrator noted, article talk pages are also not a forum to discuss the topic itself (WP:NOTFORUM), so I suggest making more specific suggestions or proposing sources, etc. WP:BRD is also a good editing guideline and the article is not protected. —PaleoNeonate – 12:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding: there are tags at the top indicating that the article was also produced or edited by students. —PaleoNeonate – 12:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

By "biology" I mean, e.g., that more EA and SEA women are thin and young-looking, and fewer are fat. "Behavior" includes things like having higher levels of education and income, and lower rates of problems like divorce, alcoholism, crime, etc.

The *term* "Asian fetish" is quite real, as are the dating market phenomena, and it's common to hear the former as an exaggerated reference to the latter. Whether there is a Notable phenomenon (ie., beyond Rule 34 mandatory existence somewhere) of sexual fetishization, distinct from mere attraction or preference toward Asians, is a question for the psychology, psychiatry or sexological medical literature but that isn't what currently appears in the article.73.149.246.232 (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this reminds me of this... But jokes aside, you'll need good sources that contrast the importance of low fat versus other factors like culture determination of what is fashionable and sexy, sexual selection favoring genetic diversity ("exotism" reduces the likelyhood of bottleneck defects), sexual dimorphism where fat and its placement play a role in detection and attraction (as well as body size)... Then the unfortunate reality of exploitation associated with sex tourism (the natives in popular destinations are generally economically disadvantaged, this apparently is not as severe as it used to be; this is also a topic that the current article doesn't cover much). Since this article is low priority for me and that I've not looked for sources yet, to avoid excessive original research on my part I'll move on, but will gladly comment on sources or new edits. I agree with you that it's popular. —PaleoNeonate – 20:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I suspect some of this problem may derive from the recent change of article title. The page was moved (without an official WP:RM#CM procedure) on 15 November 2019. For a long time it been called "Asian fetish", the term used by most of its sources to describe a documented cultural phenomenon concerning dating and sex tourism. The new title, "Asian sexual fetish", is more scientific-sounding but I suspect it has little correspondence in the literature. Perhaps we should consider returning to the original article title? - Polly Tunnel (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know that. I think it should be moved back, per the reason you gave. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I also didn't know and now noticed that there are 17 pages of talk archives that have not been moved and would become accessible again if it was moved back. I'll still ping Jargo Nautilus for their opinion, —PaleoNeonate – 04:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! I have moved the page back. Jargo Nautilus will need to start a WP:RM if they want to pursue that further. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree, as it's now been contested. —PaleoNeonate – 08:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

"Caucasian" should be replaced

The label of "Caucasian" is used throughout this page, but as is noted on Caucasian race, the term is outdated and has different meanings; its use as a synonym for white is limited to the United States. "White people" is the more current, widely understood terminology. A lot of the uses of "Caucasian" on this page are actually changed from the sources, which use "white." I think all uses of "Caucasian" on this page should be changed to "white." If the source says "Caucasian" then it should be put in quotes on this page. InEventOf (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

South Asia

We're having this back-and-forth in the lede about whether South Asians are included under the term "Asian fetish", and I don't blame people for the confusion. Clearly, the article focuses on East Asian women -- namely from China, Japan, and the Koreas -- but "Asian" is incredibly broad. Maybe moving the article to "East Asian fetish" would help. Or maybe we could find some sources having to do with South Asians, although those types of things don't seem to exist. puggo (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

But "Asian fetish" is the WP:COMMONNAME. Source #4 mentions the South Asian aspect. Whether that's WP:DUE is another matter. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Source #38 also concerns South Asia. It's written by Pratibha Parmar and it references the Kama Sutra. Sri Lanka is mentioned in the article, as are Vietnam, Thailand, Sinagapore, Indonesia and the Philippines – a set of countries in Southeast Asia rather than East Asia. Incidentally, this article has already been moved to East Asian fetish at least once. It was boldly moved there on 22 March 2018‎ by a now-blocked user, and it was moved back on 2 April 2018‎ by an admin as a result of an IP request. A subsequent bold move to Asian sexual fetish on 15 November 2019 and back gain on 13 February 2020 involved discussions (here and here) which included some talk on the issue of WP:COMMONNAME. Myself, I've not come across the term "East Asia Fetish" amongst sources anywhere near as often as "Asian Fetish". - Polly Tunnel (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

A simple solution might be to title the article something along the lines of "Asian Fetish (phenomenon)", "Asian Fetish (culture)", "Asian Fetish (psychology)", etc. As it stands, the title "Asian Fetish" is not entirely explicit for a person who has not yet read the article and is not otherwise highly familiar with the term. The main problem with this article, which is a glaring problem in my opinion, is that it just immediately dives into the topic with historical documents and research papers without actually explaining what the phenomenon exactly is beforehand. Essentially, whoever wrote the main body of this article just assumed that the reader would automatically know exactly what they were talking about and didn't bother to provide an adequate definition. In other words, this article is too jargonistic for the average reader to properly understand what it's even talking about in the first place, although I'm sure that there is valid research being discussed in the body. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Asian women-caucasian men? Not rather asian women-north european men?

I've never seen "asian fever" among white mediteraneans (Portuguese, Spaniard, Italian, Greek, Turk, Balkan), I have the impression it's more an anglo/scandinavian and an american (many have north european ancestors) thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:50D5:6800:84F9:528D:D444:8B35 (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

If you can find sources on that, you can add a section. But I would bring them here for discussion first. puggo (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@2A02:A03F:50D5:6800:84F9:528D:D444:8B35: - Interesting that you mention the Turks in regards to a page dealing with an "Asian fetish", because Turkey is geographically, mostly in Asia. But none of the sources seem to mention them (the Turks) as being part of this "Asian fetish" despite being mostly part of Asia. Instead, the sources/perspectives focus primarily on American and specifically towards "yellow" Asians or East Asians (hence the term "yellow fever") and to a lesser extent, Southeast Asians and South Asians. In regards to your other comment, the "globalize" template or banner is included at the top of the article specifically because the sources and perspectives of the page deal mainly with a United States perspective, and the country has their own definition of "Asian", which does not encompass all Asian peoples. But not every country has the same definition of "Asian" people. Canada's census for example, has a pan-Asian definition which includes everyone from Turkey and the Levant to India, China and the Philippines as being "Asian". So, I guess this begs the question, if the "Asian fetish" page is only about some Asians, (such as the mention of "yellow fever or people" in reference to East Asians, and to a lesser extent, examples concerning Southeast Asians and South Asians) or if this page is suppose to be about a "fetish" for any of the peoples of Asia including West Asians and so on? The sources primarily deal with the United States or are from the perspectives of America and certain Anglophone countries. I haven't found any sources about this "fetish" beyond contexts pertaining the U.S/certain Anglophone countries, so perhaps there may be some truth to the idea that this "phenomenon" may be "observed" in only some regions. But that will need reliable sources and discussion before asserting this. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a Wikipedia editor so hopefully this is found by someone capable of making the necessary edits. Most of the flaws are found within the style of writing, with terms such as "Westerners" that are vague and incorrect. The particular paragraph with marriage statistics reports some that are unspecified of any date and information of where they are applicable. With much of this to do in the USA, I recommend creating a new article specific for the USA. Perhaps North America since Canada shares much intertwined history regarding this topic. This article is quite short but it is a very expansive topic that deserves more due diligence, it cannot be left to be written by those with stakes in the matter and needs the attention by someone without any emotional investment in it. It would not be wise to speculate why this article is written without tact from a very biased and American PoV but it still remains that is must be written as objective and international as possible. While the degree of objectivity could be argued endlessly, I think it is near impossible to refute that there is plenty of room left for improvement in this article. This article comes off as a journal from a conspiracy site, not to be rude but that is quite genuinely how it reads to me as a viewer and that is not how one wants to see this Wikipedia page. We want the history to be represented accurately with as little room allowed for misinterpretation as possible. All of the anecdotes are unnecessary as a collection of statements, these can be summarised by group sentiments and must be emphasised that they are of anecdotal nature. This is because they are redundant and could be written in a concise fashion. Opinions that make up the Asian fetish, cultural and racial, must be written as such; the article borderlines on portraying these anecdotes as factual basis for the temperament and behaviours of Asian women when it is false without evidence.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.4.204.170 (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, the term "Westerner" is used because that's what the sources say. We follow what the sources say on Wikipedia, not opinions or things derived from that because that constitutes original research. As a result, opinions are not discussed on any Wikipedia article. All Wikipedia articles can be improved so responses from people like you help in making Wikipedia articles better. (2001:8003:4E46:D000:DD40:72F2:65F:CE6D (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC))

I'm okay with the article title being left as is, although perhaps a separate "United States" section would be beneficial. My problem with the page is that, although the term "Asian fetish" seems to imply that this is a "fetish" for any of the peoples of Asia, the sources deal with a primarily United States perspective, and even the sources that are not in the United States (one source was from a gay Australian man of Chinese descent) pertain to only some Asian peoples, primarily East Asia (there are sources provided which mention "yellow fever" in reference to a fetish for East Asians or "yellow people") and to a lesser extent, Southeast Asia and South Asia. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nmoutoux.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Rewrite

I saw the notice on my talk page, so I came here to have a look. I dont see any huge problem with NPOV in the current article, but I wonder about the limitations that have been put on the term. It's possible that a large majority of people pick and choose so that they can make pejorative terms to hit just the right people.

It is possible that there is nothing behind the purported preferences of individuals, i.e., maybe people all just find love with other people without regard to the so-called "races" of their potential mates. It is possible that all people just find love with others regardless of the culture of the objects of interest. But there seems to be a good deal of anecdotal evidence to suggest that race and culture can make some individuals less attractive, and there is also plenty of anecdotal evidence to show that third parties can have very negative attitudes toward mixed couples--even though there can be elements of the double standard in these evaluations too.

To have any kind of an objective report on this phenomenon there would have to be an effective screening test that produces answers something like the following:

Subject X.
Erotically attracted to opposite sex members of the other "race" at level _____
Erotically attracted to opposite sex members of the same "race" at level _____
Erotically attracted to opposite sex members of the other culture at level ____
Erotically attracted to opposite sex members of the other culture at level ____
Erotically attracted to same sex members of the other "race" at level _____
Erotically attracted to same sex members of the same "race" at level _____
Erotically attracted to same sex members of the other culture at level ____
Erotically attracted to same sex members of the other culture at level ____

Much of what makes a person erotically attractive to someone lies in the expectations felt toward that person. Noticing the physical appearance visually may inform one of some of that person's likely characteristics such as smell, What is a turn-on for one person may be a turn-off for another person. Noticing some indications of a potential mate's cultural background may inform one of that person's likely social characteristics, personality traits, etc.

There are people who proclaim that they will gladly have intercourse with anyone of the right sex. I think that in practice those people are actually much more selective. Anyway, it would be strange if a society were to insist that its members be willingly sexually available to all members of the human race or to all members of some large subset of the human race. Many things done in cultural groups the world over are intended to make the individual more attractive to desired mates, indicating that selectivity is well and thriving. So from a neutral point of view it would be interesting to know what factors seem to be viewed as most salient.

What is it about a member of some Asian population that might make that person more attractive to a person from a non-Asian population? Is it physical? A question of measurements, perhaps? Is it mental? A question of typical attitudes, perhaps? And why would a member of a non-Asian population find his/her experience with an Asian enhanced by these qualities? Is it a question of the Asians being better? In that case the Asian half of such a couple would automatically be on the losing end, would have to put up with a mate whose characteristics are inferior to those of his/her own Asian group. Or is it a question of complementation of characteristics, so the each person is strengthened by the strong points of the other?

The way the article has been written so far seems to suggest to me the picture of people who are deciding fundamental issues in their lives merely on the basis of what is trendy, or on other completely superficial grounds. Whether that is true or not is not known, but it probably should not be simply assumed from the start. 金 (Kim) 05:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Kim -- thanks for weighing in here. However, I've pretty much left this behind (maybe I should blank it). On the discussion section of the Asian fetish main page is the argument since I developed this. The primary author of the page has admitted that it represents a particular Asian-American viewpoint, and while I respect that we need to figure out how to make it work in the Wikipedia system of verifiable, citable, encyclopedic fact. This is complicated by the intersection (or conflation) of a line of academic/literary theory with the more basic (and probably important) questions that you ask. One issue of POV/NPOV is whether a term like "Asian fetish" stigmatizes normal interracial relationships, and I think that is the question you are getting at. I would encourage you to participate on Talk:Asian fetish (if you can bear it). -- Gnetwerker 06:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Steadthor.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 29 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tmanyrath. Peer reviewers: Chintanpatel2634, Shahzia Perveen.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 October 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tamuwu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"Burden"?

Under the heading "Psychological effects" the second sentence makes this claim: "Based on responses from a few Asian ethnic groups, the yellow fever phenomenon has created a psychological burden on people of East and Southeast Asian descent." (emphasis added) I read the source for this claim, and that is indeed the assertion that the author makes, but hers is just one opinion out of many, and unsurprisingly, opinions to the contrary would not be likely to find publishers or other platforms that meet WP:RS to present a counter-argument, resulting in an imbalance of viewpoints that gives the appearance of orthodoxy without actually being orthodox.
Furthermore, asserting that a "phenomenon" exists by examining outcomes (non-Asian men who may express an opinion that they find Asian women more attractive than those of their own ethnicity, or the existence of such couples), without possibly being able to divine men's actual motivation, is a classic Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. It also pathologizes an opinion or dynamic that may not actually be a pathology; it may be something as innocuous as, for example, the fact that Asian women are less likely to have tattoos than black or white women, and a certain percentage of men finding tattoos on women unattractive or unfeminine.
Also, the expression of preferences for Asian partners is far from exclusive to men towards women; one can readily find the same expressions made in gay contexts, and possibly for the same reasons.
Finally, asserting that the existence of something that the author identifies as "yellow fever" places "a psychological burden on people" is a postmodern/Marxist tactic to try to declare one class to be an oppressor and the other, a victim. Curiously, there is no WP article on so-called "jungle fever" -- a claimed phenomenon where some black men have a preference for white women, despite this being something frequently observed and written about (see Spike Lee's 1991 film of that name). Imagine someone asserting that the existence of some black men having a preference for white women, places "a psychological burden on white people" and is therefore an example of black oppression and white victimhood. Pretty far-fetched, but completely in keeping with the logic at work here.
The use of "...has created..." and "...psychological burden..." are both too strongly stated to reflect objective reality. I would suggest rewriting the sentence to be more even-handed -- something like "Some members of Asian ethnic groups feel that the 'yellow fever' phenomenon places a psychological burden on people of Asian descent." Bricology (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

1) Based on phrases like "a postmodern/Marxist tactic," the suggestion that Wikipedia's handling of interracial attraction is racially motivated, and the suggestion that Asian fetish may be harmless, your comment appears to be politically motivated.

2) Your proposed revision does nothing except to couch the claim in qualifiers. That's unnecessary. The claim is already sourced and indicates the kind of information it is drawing from. Furthermore, there is no distinction between "feeling that something places a psychological burden on you" and having a psychological burden placed on you. It's a subjective state that we can only know about through asking people. I do not believe that the statement as it is currently written will confuse anyone as to what factual information there is.

3) Many of your issues seem to be with the article as a whole and not with this specific sentence. If you can back up any of the claims you make here with evidence, then by all means add that information to the article.

4) Just to address one particular thing you mentioned, there is no post hoc fallacy. Post hoc would be like if someone had an Asian babysitter and later in life developed an Asian fetish, it would be fallacious to assert that the fetish resulted from the babysitter. What is the earlier event in your scenario that Asian fetishism is being fallaciously attributed to? The "phenomenon" is the outcome we're observing (in fact, that's close to the definition of "phenomenon"). I don't see anyone claiming to know universally why racialized sexual attraction occurs. 69.131.100.197 (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

One sided -> "White man prefer submissive women thats why "Asian"???

Some do, okay. But the complete article only cycles around that one theory. That gens might play a role, the "exotic" aspect we might find more attractive than the more or less distant cousins all around us here in the western world not a word at all about that. No it's all about "men seeking weak women". It HAS to be. So stupid... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.110.239.229 (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Worse, it left out the obvious. Short height and reduced body hair are feminine traits. They also happen to be Asian traits. Was this obvious truth unacceptable to admit? There is also a reputation for high IQ that could play a role, and the desire for future children to have a tiger mom. Instead, we get the raging feminist assumption that this is all about power over women. 97.104.89.121 (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The perspective you propose to include violates Wiki community guidelines of neutrality. Wiki reflects the majority opinion that exists among reputable published sources, and the majority of reputable published sources connect Asian fetishes (with a LOT of evidence from history, sociology, psychology, etc) to the power dynamics between white Western men and Asian women. There is not a significant enough amount of literature backing your point that "Short height and reduced body hair are feminine traits. They also happen to be Asian traits." is the reason why Asian fetish exists as it does. Ushtima (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence are useless, as they would be based on our personal experience rather than published research. Whether certain Asian women happen to match with the feminine beauty ideal of other cultures is an interesting thought, but we would have to see if there are sources which claim this. Dimadick (talk) 10:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

This wikipedia article is slightly biased and non-neutral in my opinion. By the way that it is biased against men's attraction which is many times not sexual and sometimes might get confused with sexual fetishization. 190.219.24.57 (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Men and women find particular characteristics attractive. White men in the US are seen as privileged and East Asian women as oppressed by the mainstream media so it will be obvious that anything which includes a white man is labeled as power dynamics and systemic oppression. The article is politically biased and doesn't analyze things from point of view that analyzes what makes a particular race of women more physically attractive to men (this is common sense). Rather, it analyzes it from a political point of view only focusing on US politics and history, ignoring the rest of the world where people can find women with particular physical characteristics (can be of a particular race) attractive, having absolutely nothing to do with the US or white supremacy. The only evidence you are talking about is from colonial US history. Also Wikipedia's guidelines of neutrality is based on that articles should not be biased, it doesn't matter if it is a mainstream opinion on a subject, it is still a bias. Rather, I suggest it should explain which the mainstream opinion is and also other opinions without actually taking sides with any opinion. The article explains what the mainstream opinion is but it takes sides with it and doesn't talk about any other opinions on the subject, besides, as I already said, only focusing on the United States, rather than the world in general, and only focusing on US history since colonialism and wars in East Asian countries. Maybe it should also be added that short height and reduced body hair, along with more attractive facial features, are more attractive to men, happening to be traits in East Asian people, this is somewhat likely (I'm not saying it's 100% fact, it is an opinion in itself). Also, perhaps it should be noted on the article that the opinion that asian fetish is based on oppression is an opinion, rather than fact, and not take it as the only opinion. 190.140.67.86 (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for sharing opinions about this topic, and Wikipedia does not publish original research. The way Wikipedia maintains neutrality is by taking the side of reliable sources. If you know of reliable sources, feel free to propose them. Grayfell (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

It's quite disingenuous to ignore the fact that articles can be cherry picked to support a certain perspective. 68.206.188.115 (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)