Talk:Asian fetish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Asian fetish article.

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A Descriptive Header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions.
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

This article was nominated for deletion on December 25, 2005. The result of the discussion was KEEP (closed early). An archived record of this discussion can be found here.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion for the second time on 28/4/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Contents

[edit] Archives

Previous discussion can be found at:

[edit] An explanation

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

[edit] Not in academic vocabulary

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

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

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

Check the sources, I did not create a "symantic construction". Also, opposing POVs are offered in the article. Plus, I have never stated that "all white men who date asian women have 'yellow fever'", so please do not make baseless accusations. And really, judging from your statement here, your bias is very obvious. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm biased? You are accusing me of having some sort of wierd fetish (or in the case of "yellow fever," a disease) - (or at least not opposing the claim) and standing by while there is simply no way to know the intentions of anyone dating anyone, let alone asian women dating white men. Obviously there are goofy men who do goofy things toward asian women. And there are plenty of goofy asian men who do goofy stuff toward white women. (I suppose they have "white fever" but we never hear about them, right?) I have great respect for the asian women I have dated. These women are always stunned and hurt when their asian male friends (mostly korean) get pissed that they are "not satisfied with their own kind." I cannot help but sometimes laugh at these men who are so incredibly obsessed with fighting this odd guerrilla war against white men. Also, Who is biased here when you have no idea who I am, what I am thinking, and what my motives are? I happen to be very attractive, successful, and enjoy dating wonderful white women, asian women, latin, or european. I greatly respect each of them for their differences, strengths, and perspectives. I will tell you that I have never in my life experienced a more odd, unfair stereotype than this bizarre "yellow fever, asian fetish" fabrication.... ::Let me be clear: I never once gave anyone -- asian or otherwise -- the right to define me. I am happy to be a white man. I have no silly "fever" made up by insecure asian men who need to demonize me to feel good about themselves.... I think the asian men who are creating this fairy tale, and asian women who support this claim (these asian women need to take a "I'm not as popular as I think I am Pill" and get a good night's sleep) need to hear this from white men categorically:
1. we are completely satisfied being who we are;
2. we never gave you the right to define us and we have no intention of submitting to your silly claim that we have some silly fever or fetish because we date some different race;
3. quit thinking you are more important than you are;
4. quit obsessing so much about us go about your business and life.
...thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Computer1200 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-09 05:00:51.
I would like to point out that the "imbalanced ratio" often gets blown out of proportion; the ratio for Asian women marrying whites to Asian men marrying whites is 2.5 :1 according to the US Census. Sometimes people who are against white men dating Asian women act like the ratio is 20:1 or something. Diego de Sequeira 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I understand that the term can be used to criticise interracial relationships, but I'd like to point out that this article shouldn't be about interracial relationships itself. There's already an article for that topic. Anyway, all I'm asking contributing editors to do is that if they're going to do non-minor edits like adding or deleting whole paragraphs, that they discuss first, because this has been a very contentious article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I don't disagree with you. It was just a passing comment, actually. Diego de Sequeira 01:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other Racial Fetishes

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

Is Asian fetish the only racial fetish? Yes, probably, and because? Well, in the US at least, the difference between Asian fetish and other ethnic fetishes is that there is a huge gender imbalance. When you talk of blacks and latinos, there (appears) to be no real discrepancy in the male-to-female ratio participating from each race. Asian fetish is different, and indeed perhaps is only an issue because there is a strong tendency toward white-male/asian-female couplings. Normally when you talk of assimilation, as with blacks and latinos, the people get absorbed as a whole. For Asian-Americans, however, this is not the case -- Asian females are being assimilated in disproportionately larger quantities than males (the population of Chinese at least, leans slightly toward a male majority, yet you see fewer Asian males in the mainstream media than females). Everybody knows who Puff Daddy is, and everybody knows who Whitney Houston is, and everybody knows who Lucy Liu is, but how many people really recognize John Cho? And whose fault is it that John Cho is the best example that we have? Or perhaps Daniel Dae Kim, the guy on Lost, whose character is ridiculously oppressive -- but that's apparently how American writers want their audience to see Asian men, though a more accurate portrait would be that of the late James Kim. This is what makes Asians -- especially the men -- suspicious of the pattern in America's adoption of Asians. (Rightfully so? Well, that's what the debate is really about.) Don't forget also the image of Asians as being the "model minority" -- that is, the minority that quietly accepts its station in a white-dominated country and does not exhibit the kind of social retaliation that other minorities tend to lean towards. This further imprints into people's minds that they can freely pick and choose what they want from the Asian population and it is therefore ok to disregard the existence of half that population -- because, I suppose, the theory is that the sexless Asian men will back up the Scared White Man even as the white men take multiple mistresses at the Asian man's expense. The question at hand is, does the Angry Asian Man exist because of some natural discrepancy in the perception of Asian males and females in American society, or does he exist because America is controlled by the Scared White Man who fears losing his status to rivals who are renowned for a superior work ethic and intelligence (again, something which differs from other minorities -- sorry if that sounds racist but let's be real)? The increasing global, technological, and industrial power of China will, if nothing else, make this issue very interesting to watch over the next decade. Personally, I think this issue will come to a head in the US sooner than later, as more empowered Asian males come to terms with it. If the fetish bubble doesn't burst, you can expect that minority to stop being model -- don't forget, these people invented ninjas and they all know kung fu. 24.6.99.30 22:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
This is the silly argument that "because there are more white male/asian female relationships than asian male/white female relationships when white men date asian women they have an "asian fetish" or "yellow fever." It's silly and makes those who argue this look immature. There is no correlation at all between the ratio of reltionships to some kind of proof that white men are experiencing a fetish or a fever. It's a tired, silly argument that makes no sense and has no foundation in truth. Sorry, guys. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Computer1200 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
I like this from the above rant from 24.6.99.30: "Personally, I think this issue will come to a head in the US sooner than later, as more empowered Asian males come to terms with it. If the fetish bubble doesn't burst, you can expect that minority to stop being model -- don't forget, these people invented ninjas and they all know kung fu." So what is being said here? If this myth of white men with some sort of wierd fetish dont stop dating asian women you guys are all going to put on your ninja outfits and kill us all? This gets more bizarre all the time. I should say that I am still hopeful that the intelligent asian men who are happy and insecure in who they are, (and do not need to demonize white men to feel good about themselves) will stand up and sound the alarm on this nonsense. But where are these asian men?


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

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

Racism is the preference of one race over another. The fact other race fetish articles don't exist makes it appear as if asians are promoted.
In that statement, I should've said "Asians consist almost half of humanity," which is a fact. Anyways, I probably should've left it out all together. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.96.153.247 (talk) 07:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
Let me help you out here. The guy who commented that it was racist is probably misreading it as "Asians are half-human". The intended meaning was that Asians account for half of the human population on Earth. It is not a racist comment, just very badly worded. 24.6.99.30 22:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Egregious NNPOV

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

Are you kidding? Criticism of the term as well as the usage of the term is littered all over the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Hong, then why did you remove an argument against the fetish? You removed my addition claiming it was completely unreferenced. Why didn't you just put a citation request like the wikipedia policy states! Perhaps you just can't handle other possible explanations! If you want references, you will get them. But if you delete what you don't agree with, there is no chance for a reference! 144.81.32.187 16:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is very contentious. Please discuss first before you add a whole new section. Besides, the references in this article itself would seem to counter your point that the term is "completely unreferenced". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I also added some material to the article before it was locked. Was that you that kept deleting it Gong? Rest assured I will be visiting this topic often. I for one will not be forced into some bizarre stereotype created by the Gongs of the world to feel better about themselves. Why can't asian men be satisfied with being asian men without demonizing white men? Do you require that we be somehow beaten down and crushed before you will feel secure? Do you not see that this war against white men completely betrays the depths of your insecurity? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Computer1200 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
Awesome. Go put that in your blog. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Of possible interest

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

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

It'll be more useful in interracial marriage. This article is not about interracial marriage, but about a type of sexual attraction. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, HongQiGong. I see that the article on interracial marriage already includes a mention of this. However this article suggests that, beyond any normal sexual attraction to other people, which may include any number of criteria, there are actual physical anthropological reasons for an Asian fetish on the part of white men for Asian women. For example: "One possible explanation for the higher incidence of White male - Asian female couples as compared to East Asian male - White female pairings may be higher average levels of testosterone found among Whites as compared to East Asians." Well, first, apparently in Japan, the imbalance is on the opposite side. And if this physical anthropological basis for an Asian fetish were true, wouldn't the sexual imbalance be universal, rather than just in some countries? I'll leave it up to you and the other editors here though. This article seems to be a mess of several unspoken ideological agendas warring with each other, none of which interest me. Dekkappai 22:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Gong: what about before they were married? Hello? Whether they are married or not, it bursts one of your claims that has no basis in truth: that there are so many more white male/asian female marriages out there than the converse; and therefore, white men are evil and trying to exploit asian people. It's flat bizarre. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Computer1200 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
Again, please just write about your thoughts in your blog. This Talk page is for the editing of this article. This is not the place for you to complain about how you've been mistreated in your own personal life. Also, I have never in my life claimed that white men are evil and are trying to exploit Asian people. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You amuse me, Gong. OK. Then why don't you unlock the main page, and I will write my contributions there. How is that for a start? I love your reasoning here: you lock the page with hugely slanted and biased information, erasing all entries you deem unworthy and now you come criticizing me for entering my views here. You're classic, my friend. Your lack of willingness to let the other side share their views is indicative of your own insecurity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Computer1200 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
I'm glad I amuse you. But 1) I didn't lock the article[2], and 2) You should get concensus before you add your content to this very contentious article. Your lack of willingness to discuss before adding content is indicative that you just want to add unfounded information and twisted logic. Very telling, my friend. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
"...You just want to add unfounded information and twisted logic." Wow, Gong, how'd you know my whole goal is just to add twisted logic? Why don't you enlighten me about exactly where my logic is so "unfounded and twisted." Great, I look forward to it.
And let me fill you in on something. Your "article" is so full of twisted logic, double entendres, and completely unintelligent and bogus thinking, that it's fascinating you can accuse me of it with a straight face. Funny. So you tell your little buddies to quit erasing my entries, and I'll put them in my blog. My entries were were worthy of anything up there right now, buddy. Thanks. And I have to say I'm fascinated that you are so passionate about defending content so consistently unintelligent and irrational. Congratulations, buddy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Computer1200 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC).
Great. Go post it up in your blog. Thanks. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biological Basis

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

There was never a source discussing specifically Asian fetish in the biological context. That section was original research strung together by unrelated articles. There has also been past discussions on that section and it had been taken out a long time ago. But regardless, please discuss before adding an entire section. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I am discussing it! There is a need to address the biological factors involved in the fetish. There I said it! It doesn't matter if some hair-brained theories were removed before. This still needs to be addressed. I don't see any scientific sources on the fetish at all! The DSM's definition of fetish is for inanimate objects. Should we then remove the whole article because there is no good research cited? Most of the sources are either humorous or editorials. Perhaps we should rename the article "Asian Fetishes in Popular Culture", and remove any claims of scientific validity. So either permit the science or remove it. Do not pick and choose. 144.81.32.187 16:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
So is your issue that the article is poorly sourced, or that we need to add a new section discussion biology? Which is it? If you think that the article is poorly sourced, I would think that the solution is to work on sourcing it better, and not adding a new section that is poorly sourced and basically original research. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
You know which it is, read the first sentence of my discussion! My point is allow the science or remove any scientific claims from the article currently. Why is it that the current content of the article can remain even though it is porrly sourced, but the biological stuff cannot remain poorly sourced? I agree with you: the solution is to work on sourcing it better, not removing any and all biological claims, as you have done! Allow poorly sourced biological material to remain, giving it a chance to be sourced better, or remove all the poorly sourced material, which would be most of the article! I mean look at reference 4. WTF? That is a internet forum! 144.81.32.187 17:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
That hardly justifies editors putting in yet more poorly sourced materials. Again, the article is very contentious. I would prefer that we discuss the addition of so much material before we actually insert it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Then perhaps we should remove the poorly sourced material. I will commence tomorrow. 144.81.32.187 17:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't disrupt Wikipedia in order to illustrate a point. Please register a username to assist communication. -Will Beback · † · 18:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
You can also discuss exactly what it is you would like to add to the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
This whole article ignores human biology that leads to certain racial trends in intermarriage. Moreover, most of the present information stems from a group group of Asian supremacists, primarily from the website modelminority.com. Their intention is to cast a negative light on White-Asian intermarriage through articles such as this. Their information is poorly sourced, the only sources are other Asian American "activists" who also oppose White-Asian sexual relationships. Biological reasons are ignored in favour of racist conspiracy theories, about the mass media etc. --Mr Phil 04:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Mr Phil, I am surprised to find you still trolling this article. You and the other German poster long ago tried to twist this article into a discussion on racist anthropological theories. I believe that other German poster was eventually banned for his actions, but here you are still. The first line of the article states that this article is not about healthy interracial relationships nor is there any opposition to "white-asian relationships" in general. This article is merely referring to a *type* of relationship. The fact that you so quickly dismiss all effects of culture, racial stereotypes, and mass media show that you are not the least bit interested in discussin this article and are only here to promote your racist anthropological theories. Anybody here can scroll back to through the discussions to see what you are all about.OneViewHere 04:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


Mr Phil, I have reverted your additions as you have repeatedly tried to add these SAME passages to the article countless times before. And each time, the Wikipedia community by CONSENSUS decided to remove those passages. The fact that you are trying to add those same passages again amounts to vandalism. If you persist in doing this I will notify the Wikipedia Admins.OneViewHere 04:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record in case anybody needs proof of Mr Phil's vandalism, please look through the article's edit history. Look at the October 9-06 entries and then look way back to Feb-06. It's been a full YEAR that this person has been trying to re-add those same passages.OneViewHere 04:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Correct. Steve Sailer is a well documented racist. Also, this user Mr Phil once tried to quote an article from a magazine called "American Renaissance" to support his racist theories. American Renaissance is a white supremacist magazine. Interestingly enough, there is a Wikipedia article on Steve Sailer that documents his racist leanings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Sailer OneViewHere 05:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
--Mr Phil 07:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I just can't support the racist agenda you try to promote here --Mr Phil 07:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Mr Phil, I hardly think you are in a position to accuse other users of being racist when you quote Steve Sailer and quote from a white supremacist magazine. You also tried to re-add content that was already decided by the Wikipedia community to be removed from this article. Your attempts to re-add that content is vandalism and I will be notifying the Wikipedia admins.OneViewHere 22:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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

That would only be hypocritical of me if I was a "leftist" who believes that "existence of human races/stirpes/taxa" is racist. But I'm not, and I don't. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
This user that goes by the IP address of 80.138.178.141 is the same German user that originally tried to add the racist anthropological content. It is clear that this unregistered user is acting in conjunction with Dr. Phil to vandalize this article. This unregistered user has been known to make racist comments in the past. He claimed once that "Jews control Wikipedia". That comment is in the discussion archives of this article and can be viewed by anyone. Please refer to the discussion archive #6 where a vote was taken to remove this racist anthropological content.OneViewHere 22:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
As a 'neutral' observer (I stumbled upon this article and its current dispute through a watched user talk page, quite by accident, and I have no interest whatsoever in the subject matter), I am astonished to look at the page history and see the submissions/reversions by Mr Phil. The intonation is of a blatant racist and inflammatory nature. I am happy to mention this as there was a call for yay or nay at the top of the post. 'Nay' to Mr Phil, I'm afraid. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 23:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have previously done some editing on this article and periodically check back to see whether any progress has been made on it. While I have made a concious effort not to get involved in the long-running argument on this, on this occasion I feel obliged to comment. Mr Phil I, like others here, was present during your last visit to these pages; you were shot down then and I'm glad to see it's happening again. Seriously man, get over it and take your reprehensible views elsewhere. NickCwik 22:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please actually read the article

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

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

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

"We don't care. Go write about it in your blog." Nice, Gong. Now that's the freedom of debate and ideas. The reason that white men stop by this incredibly out of balance wikipedia entry is because you and others have chosen to define us according to your own twisted obsession with making us look bad because we have happened to date women of other races, including asian women. Sorry: we don't bow to your definitions of us, and we do not allow you permission to define us. I would also freely support asians as they fight against the bias that exists against them at times in the white world. But I will not give up truly who I am, and accept that i have some "asian fetish" to make you feel good about being an asian man. Again, sorry.
And as far as I can tell, you all have a little army that go in and immediately remove anything you deem "not associated with the topic." Your judgments here are painfully and obviously biased. Don't pretend to be neutral or biased. It sounds silly.
I am just floored that sometimes asian men do not feel good enough just as asian men; they need the humiliation of white men to feel good about themselves. This is simply a recapitulation to colonial oppressions of the past (as horrific as that was), is it not? Asian men still do not know who they are without white men. But don't blame me for this colonial submission. I'm urging you to stand up and be who you are without me. Quit trying to demonize me to feel good about yourself. You are good enough already whether I am successful with asian women or not. It doesnt matter. Ignore the whites who are idiots and live your lives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Computer1200 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-09 15:49:28.
I think you suffer from a case of "not everything is about you" syndrome. This article *clearly* states that it does not refer to all interracial romances, nor does it make any kind of blanket claims as to the behavior of white men. So what exactly are you objecting to? From what I can see, you object to the mere mention of the POSSIBILITY that these types of dysfunctional relationships can exist. According to you, this is all in Asian men's heads and has no basis in reality. If this article doesn't reflect the reality of what your interracial relationship is, then it's NOT ABOUT YOU. So why do you care?OneViewHere 18:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I suffer from "not everything is about you" syndrome OneViewHere? Funny: we white men want one thing: for you asians to quit focusing on us when we sometimes date asian women. There are lots of odd asians out there laser-focused on this, and some of the asian women need to take a serious look in the mirror and recognize that the reality is that all balanced, healthy white men are in fact NOT obsessed with them just because they have black hair and dark eyes. Sorry, ladies: that is a myth.
Quite frankly, we just want you all to leave us alone and go live your lives. But you do not. You keep bringing up this issue that because sometimes we date asian women, we are diseased and odd. I for one refuse to accept your definitions of who I am based on your need to demonize me. Now: if you are one who recognizes that there are also some bad white male/asian female relationships and also some great ones, then guess what? That means that this relationship type is just like every other interracial combination: normal. With every single possible combination of relationships there are good relationships and there are bad. Why the white male/asian female variety is so incredibly over-emphasized is bizarre, and it points to roots in the hearts of asian men. Don't get me wrong: I know lots of great asian men who are strong and secure and have no problems dating any race. These are the ones who couldn't give a care about who dates who, and have no problems dating hot women from any race including white women. But the asian men who are deeply insecure for no fault of white men are the ones who I address these words to. My message is this: learn to love who you are without making up silly reasons for asian women to somehow rebel against another race—white or otherwise. it's silly and betrays insecurity that is unmistakable.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Computer1200 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-09 22:57:49.
What makes you think this article is about you??? The very first line of the article states that it is *not* about "love or interracial relationships". If you are a black/brown/white/yellow/red person who happens to occassionally date Asian women, then nothing in this article remotely applies to you. Neither is this article an "attack on white men" as a black man or woman can easily have an Asian fetish as well. You seem to be suffering from a lack of reading comprehension, as there is nothing in this article that backs up any of your claims. I will repeat, everything is not about YOU, or white men. Nor is this discussion forum a platform for you to air your imagined persecution complex. If you want to debate the merits of the article, then you can start by talking about specific QUOTES.OneViewHere 04:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
What makes me this article think it is about me? Nothing in this article remotely applies to me? Can you say, with a straight face, that almost all of the time people mention "asian fetish" or "yellow fever" that they are NOT speaking about white male/asian female relationships? And, the first line of the article is silly. How can this entire entry NOT be about interracial relationships? What ELSE is this topic about??? The term "asian fetish" is — by very definition — a discourse on how non-asian and asians INTERRELATE. And also, I never said my argument is exclusively about white male / asian female relationships. The problem here is that I made that clear in the article, but one of your friends insisted on continuing to edit those comments out.
Yes, once again, I will repeat: This article is *not* about healthy normal interacial relationships. This article addresses a certain KIND of relationship that is based on cultural stereotypes. You seem to think that this article is making blanket generalizations about ALL interracial relationships when in fact it is NOT. That much is made clear in the very first line of the article. The article also mentions CRITICISMS of this concept, therefore it is fairly balanced. --OneViewHere 01:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
You're classic. I never once said the article was about "healthy normal interacial relationships." It is about what you folks consider a disease, this "asian fetish" — according to you, and some bogus male asian author, the impetus of sexual violence against women for God's sake! (you'll never hear about the opposite of this: asian men who have a fetish for attractive white women. You know why? Because I am perfectly OK with myself without demonizing asian men.) So yes, buddy, you are right when you say the article is NOT about healthy interracial relationships. Again: the first line of your article is nonsense. There is no way to de-link an interracial relationship with the content of this article. If you are talking about an "asian fetish," then it is only logical that you are talking about the interplay between your perceived interracial villains who — according to you — inflict pain on their victims, as you so gallantly point out in your "balanced" article.
Do me a favor, Mr. Balanced and Fair: if you're so passionate about balance, why don't you dig up some good examples of how what you term a "fetish" can simply be "attraction" to the rest of the world. You are so determined to make attraction between white males and asian females evil and ugly that you've created a term to demonize it and institutionalize your insecurity. Now find some good examples of white male / asian female relationships. That's when I will consider you balanced and fair. Until then, all sensible, balanced, attractive and confident men — of all races — will take issue with your nonsense.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Computer1200 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-15 04:26:06.


And I love this about "my imagined persecution complex." You really must be living in a box. Either that, or you're more interested in winning an argument than simply recognizing reality. And yes, I'll start debating specific "quotes" in the article when you lose some paranoia and un-protect it. Thanks.
I did not write-protect this article. The Wikipedia admins did because the article was being vandalized by some racist users who want to turn this article into a race-based eugenics article. There is *nothing* preventing you from having a conversation about specific points or quotes from this article. The fact that you have not done so proves to me that you are just here to complain with little to back it up. And by the way, please follow Wiki guidelines and sign your discussion entires. --OneViewHere 01:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually this is about the best summary of the subject matter I have heard so far. Racism cuts both ways and right now this article is all about blaming Whitey. --Mr Phil 02:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out the present editor's as well as Gong's racism and bias. --Mr Phil 11:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Phil, as a white supremacist, you really have no ground to stand on here. This article is not a platform for your racist eugenic diatribes. The removal of your racist content was not decided by the editor, but by a consensus vote of the Wikipedia community.OneViewHere 18:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You know Mr. Racist, go f*ck yourself. --Mr Phil 04:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like you need a time out. Perhaps you and your anonymous German friend should go into a corner and have a nice leisurely conversation about "how the Jews control Wikipedia". Or you can go read some more Steve Sailer or American Renaissance (magazine) articles. Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously when you quote from a white supremacist magazine? OneViewHere 05:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOT#SOAP. WP is not a soapbox. If you want to tell the world about any injustice, please write about it in your blog. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

To call Mr. Phil a White suprematist was the primary insult. You cannot label good scientists who do their best racists . We are the ones who love and appreciate foreign races despite your campaign against us, while e.g. many "angry Asian men" are envious of Caucasian-Mongoloid relationships,while many Jewish scientists only feel comfortable among Jews while calling people like us racists because we criticize their leftist programme to weaken the West (s. Kevin B. MacDonald). Undeniable fact is that the dominant Boasian "anthropology " has a leftist political agenda.And that means "Trotzkyist", not to confuse it with healthy Chinese Stalinist ethnocentrism (Sinocentrism). E.g. the works of Boas (the Jew) and Mead (the lesbian) e.g. have been discredited even in mainstream media.- The only scientific part of this article has been the testosterone and the anthropology section based on international capacities who were not influenced by the counter-cultural revolution. We are honest. We don't glorify anything. We see the unflattering minor intelligence of gentile Caucasian people compared to Eastern-Asians and Ashkenzim Jews that are big disadvantages in competition. We acknoledge the unflattering physical masculinity of Caucasian women and especially Nordic women making them unfeminine viragos. NO white suprematist does that.Those viragos were vulnerable to feminism which they absorbed with great pleasure leading to the Caucasian people's death. The essence of the virago: the wish to penetrate ,not to be penetrated.It is a universal law (Max Hartmann) which started 1 billion years ago .So, the femininity and fine delicacy of the women from the Palaemongolid race are the real cause of the "Asian fetish".Additionally, we see the the permanent ignorance of intelligence as a key factor for success and well-being. In Europe, the weak politicians tell the people that there is no connection between intelligence and the pursuit of happiness, while millions of capable and industrious Chinese academics are waiting to overtake America and the West .As one result Jews will be driven out of the technological sector in America in the next 40 years, just as intelligent Djain Indians have nearly driven them out totally from the Antwerp diamond market comprising 20 billion dollars per year e.g. And finally, there is the virago Sheridan Prasso, the amazon in the fight against the "Asian fetish", who hasn't yet recognized the biogical source of her (sexual) uncontentedness dicussed in detail by us.-- If this world cannot separate any more between truth-finding and personal interests, then the stability of this world is sincerely in danger. It is mainstream today to attack the West promoted by the New York intellectuals, the Boasians, Jacques Derrida's deconstructionism, the falsified psychoanalysis, the virago feminists and the androgynous leftists.The Christian occident has been the cradle of modern art, universalism, technology and philosophy. No-one has achieved as much as a relatively small number of geniuses and highly-gifted in Western Europe. Tendentiously , Western Europe has only a small sense of ethnocentrism which is contrary to universalism. Nowhere in the world foreigners are welcomed as much as in Europe, by politicians and by the people . But foreigners are nor welcomed by the Japanese, black Africans , Jews or American Indians .Those people will always stay particularist obviously. And please understand now this big bitter irony of fate that the peoples who achieved the most, were tolerant the most are overrun and destroyed by this particularist mob now irreversibly.If this does not change , a final global atomic war of an Eurasian alliance against this perfidious plot seems inevitable.The Shanghai treaty (Russia, China, Iran) points to this direction.- You don't have to fear us. You should fear yourselves and the pity you bring to many people, in this case the pathologization of the "Asian fetish". A lot of hapas are depressive because many Eurasians are still pathologized and discrimintaetd against. Just read some web blogs. 80.138.170.240 16:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for summing things up. Mr Phil
Wow, keep talking, my anonymous German friend. You are doing more to discredit yourself than anything I could say.OneViewHere 04:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There is something rotten in the state of Denmark.80.138.170.240 16:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, jeebus. Again, WP is not a soapbox. Please take it somewhere else. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalized version kept

The heading Asian_fetish#Anthropological_explanation_of_Asian_fetishes is completely fucked up. Could an admin remove this part:

"Regarding the article "nonanoic acid" (pelargonic acid: It is also used as an organic herbicide (brand name: Scythe) which degrades rapidly and poses no known contamination threat. It acts by disintegrating the cuticle (shiny layer) of leaves. Since it acts only on leaves and tender shoots, it will not kill plants that propagate by runners: poison ivy, English ivy, black locust, wild grape. A systemic herbicide is needed in cases of such plants. A mixture of pelargonic acid and glyphosphate (Round Up, et al.)has been recommended. The first removes cuticle and the latter penetrates to roots. Neither alone erdicates English ivy. Glyphosphate also degrades within 48 hours.

Thanks for your consideration.

Thomas J Cantwell cantwell@bvunet.net" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mackan (talk • contribs) 16:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Ah, Prof. Cantercunter , the grey propagandist ridiculing Hartmann's botany, je suis enchanté!80.138.185.243 10:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This article has been hi-jacked by leftist Boasian pseudo-scientists suppressing empirical data.This edit war lasts for 3 years now. And as long as our carefully researched anthropology section is not included, this edit war will go on endlessly.80.138.185.243 10:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your racist anthropology section was removed by a consensus vote of the Wikipedia community. If you continue your attempts to vandalize it, then the Wiki admins will just have to leave the article write-protected forever. OneViewHere 21:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Racist according to one leftist definition is a believer in the mere existence of races.Do you adhere to this definition ? A further aspect of Asian fetish : Asian-gentile affection is pathologized and ridiculed by prominent Jews like Sheridan Prasso and Ari Shaffir whereas the shiksa theme ,the attraction of a Jew by a gentile woman is presented as unproblematic in the media (cf. e.g."The Jews of Prime Time",Edmund Connelly, The Occidental Quarterly, Fall 2006).If Asian fetish is pathologized, I will start to scientifically pathologize Marilyn Monroe's and Anna Nicole Smith's Jewish lovers , too. By the way , they are described to have ruined her , Stern is even suspected to have something to do with Anna's and her son's drug deaths.Equal rights to anybody. 80.138.145.204 00:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Here're a couple of good places for you to pathologise all you want - www.xanga.com or www.blogspot.com. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

On google video, there are a couple of films for you to hear from Asian girls why they prefer Caucasian men (will be added to the references by me ,e.g. video "Why Asian girls go for white guys").80.138.145.204 01:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That's great. But that's also not the topic of this article. Feel free to reference that in the article about interracial relationships. I don't know how many times I've told people to read this article. This article is about non-Asians having a sexual attraction especially for Asian people. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again. This article has an anti-gentile bias. And concerning racial fetishes wikipedia has an anti-getile bias ,too, the Jew -shiksa racial fetish is e.g. missing as mentioned before. The mass media people pathologizing Asian fetish are gentile , often androgynous leftists (Trotzkyist), leftist (Trotzkyist) Jews and Trotzkyist racial Europid viragos ,often overlapping. I have been preparing a complete list of all significant anti-AF people for you and the ethnic self-identification and virago self-identification of them (just what MacDonald did for the leftist movements of the 20th century).After that analysis ,your objections will fade.- Jews are not only mainly members of the Armenid human race with distinct physical and psychological features, they are an own human race ("Judaid" in the Eickstedt nomenclature , tendentiously depigmented and taller Armenids with an exceptional average intelligence of 115 (that means on average every Jew can attend university !) contributing mainly to the depigmentation and greater height and with further genetic a n d morphological disctinctions ).For the intra-racial and inter-racial connection between intelligence, intellectual dispositions and skin colour, height and race see e.g. the Knußmann manual, Richard Lynn and John Randal Baker.Similar as the Aethiopoid and therefore Europid (!) senator Obama, Martin Luther king was a mulatto with an over-average portion of Europid genes (more than 25 percent; average is 15 per cent in the South, 25 per cent in the North ).So the next president of the US is technically impossible to be Negrid ! 80.138.142.118 19:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Enough, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia does not allow original research. This has gone on for long enough. If it continue, I will semi-protect this talk page. If you have well sourced NPOV content to present then do so and we will discuss that, but these rants accomplish nothign. JoshuaZ 20:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Please just protect it now and consider taking admin actions against these people. They're not going to stop. They were banned in the German Wikipedia already. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. These users have already stated their intent to re-add their content back into the article even after a consensus vote by the Wiki community went against them. This has been going on for a year now by these same 2 vandals. If you look at Mr Phil's user talk page, he has been reprimanded several times already by other Wiki admins for use of profanity and abusing the 3RR revert rule. The other anon IP guy has been banned by German Wikipedia. I think that is more than enough basis to ban them here too. OneViewHere 23:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editors of this article should be ashamed of themselves

This is the only article I've read on Wikipedia that has left me truly disgusted. The editors are obviously racist losers with nothing better to do than insult other people for their choice of partners. How can a consensual relationship between two people be "racist" or a "fetish" just because they belong to different ethnic groups? Get a life (and a boyfriend/girlfriend) you sad losers. Suitsyou 01:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you must be new to the Internet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.108.26.204 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-25 01:35:17.


Are people somehow missing the very first line of the article that states that the article is not about interracial love or relationships? It's right there in black and white. Mr Suitsyou, this article has nothing to do with people in relationships that just happen to belong to different ethnic groups. If that is what you got from reading the article, then I suggest reading it again.....carefully. --OneViewHere 07:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I love it. You're still insisting this nonsense is NOT about interracial relationships. You are truly trying to avoid the obvious, and it makes you look silly OneViewHere. Look at the entry that was posted in favor of keeping the article" here:
"I do believe the article implies that any man who dates or marries an Asian is accused of being a fetishist, of being shallow and living out a racist fantasy. I'mnot sure how this should be expanded upon Lotusduck 19:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
And as such, the article needs to acknowledge that not all such relationships constitute fetishism. This need not be a long statement, but the article is POV by its omission. Durova 21:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm truly looking forward to how you defend against this one, buddy. It's right there: "THE ARTICLE IMPLIES THAT ANY MAN WHO DATES OR MARRIES AN ASIAN IS A FETISHIST." Sorry, but that's horribly racist, unfair, and betrays a supreme insecurity, not to mention lack of intelligence.
SuitsYou: Ditto for me. I read Wiki a lot, and this is the first one that is completely illogical and based on unfair stereotypes of interracial relationships. Maybe it might be telling that someone other than me is disgusted at the implications of this article, huh, OneViewHere and Mr. Gong? And please, don't send us off to read the article again, "carefully." We did. For you to declare with nonchalance "it's not about interracial relatoinships," makes you sound ridiculous. So much for the (unfair) stereotype that all asians are smart. Look: an "asian fetish" is — by definition — something that implies relationships between a non-asian and an asian. You are implying that, even if those who have your "fetish" are not in relationships, that those who are -- they are also diseased and animal-like, prowling about as if to devour some innocent asian.I am the first to defend against asian stereotypes. It's time for you to defend against unfair white stereotypes. Any intelligent person knows that there is good and bad in every race. But your little "fetish rant" leaves no room for good/bad -- anyone attracted to the asian persuasion (and you all make it sound like EVERYONE is obsessed with asia -- which is a silly idea in and of itself) is bad -- EVERYONE. It's racist, unbalanced, unfair, and it shouldn't be in Wikipedia, giving a great name a black eye.
As I said before, in order for you two to sound fair, it needs to be clearly spelled out that there is a difference between a "fetish" and an "attraction." You did not respond to this. In order for you to stop offending non-asians and sounding racist you better add this. But alas, you and all your friends rallied and had the thing locked.
Again, Your lack of sophisticated analytical thinking is in plain view. Doesn't that bother you? Fascinating, indeed. And your indulgence in this silly ignorant rant about "fetishes" without making the distinction with "attraction" is noted. So much for asian intelligence. I'm terribly busy, but believe me: I'll be watching this entry until it is balanced. Computer1200 13:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Right, and the opinion of one editor back in December of 2005, when the article was in a completely different state, basically should be considered the paramount assessment of how this article currently is. Give me a break. Please take your time to actually read through the entire article. Right in the intro itself, it discussed how the term can be used to ostracise interracial relationships. In a proceeding section, it talks about how it is not a "fetish" that is recognised as a disease by any psychologists and scientists. And further down, there are sections devoted to opposing views. "So much for asian intelligence"? What is that, some kind of racist insult? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I had to laugh when I read that too. That statement was made by a user over TWO YEARS ago and the article has been almost completely re-written since then. Anybody can go back into the article's revision history to verify this. There appear to be some people here who are upset over what they feel the article "implies" as opposed to what it is actually saying.OneViewHere 21:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
To those of you who feel that the article "implies" that any and all relationships between whites and asians are based on fetishism, please point to me the line that states this. Show me where the article makes a blanket accusation against white people. Show me. As Hong pointed out above, the article CLEARLY STATES in the very first line that this article is not about interracial relationships, nor is there any line in the article that claims that *all* such relationships are based on fetish. In fact, the article devotes entire SECTIONS on oppposing views. Stop telling me what you think the article IMPLIES. Give me one line that proves your accusations. If you think the distinction between relationships that are based on Asian fetishism and interracial relationships in general needs to be clarified, then we are all open to specific suggestions. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, there DO EXIST some relationships that are based on fetishism and racial stereotypes. This articles addresses that. It does not in any way condemn or imply that ALL interracial relationships are based on fetishism and this is CLEARLY stated in the article. So maybe you guys need to start reading the article for what it actually SAYS instead of reading into it what you *think* it is implying. OneViewHere 21:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Let me get straight to the point here: You need to make a distinction between healthy, vital, and life-giving attractions, and your "asian fetish." The article makes NO DISTINCTION — and it should. It is offensive, racist, and unbalanced for you to not be concerned about this distinction, and your lack of concern, is disturbing. And I love how you are the final say on what this unbalanced article implys. Do I not have the right to intelligently interpret its meaning based on the fact that it is mostly aimed at me? Are you two the final Asian Fetish Article Judges and all plebians submit to you two? Don't think so. I HAVE read it, and it is out of balance. I will not stop until it is balanced.
Oh, and if you're wondering, balance looks something like this:' "As in all interracial and intercultural relationships of all kinds, there are people who can become obsessed with one particular racial profile and make it into something dangerous. But there are also interracial and intercultural relationships that, while they can be challenging, are very rewarding, gratifying, and life-giving to all. Here are some examples of both:"
Gong and OneViewHere, let me introduce you to Balance— he's new around here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Computer1200 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-26 09:34:46.
So you think this article is "aimed" at you? What, do you think Asian women are all submissive geisha dolls with secret sexual techniques? If you do not, then this article is not "aimed" at you then. I don't know how many times I must tell you, this article is not about interracial relationships. It's about a term and the type of attraction it refers to. That is all. It makes no comment about whether or not interracial relationships are healthy or not. In fact, the only time it refers specifically to interracial relationship is when it talks about how the term "Asian fetish" may be used to criticise interracial relationships involving Asian people. You want to add your little op-ed about interracial relationships, add it here: Interracial_marriage#In_the_United_States. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Needs Rewriting from Scratch

Well, hey there Gong. Thanks again for wiping out all of my input in this section just because I accidentally erased something. I call that IRRESPONSIBLE AND OUT OF LINE. Seems like you're afraid of something, Gong? Maybe the fact that your argument sucks? (by the way, I have NEVER just erased something, like you always do. I always respond; i never intentionally erase material.) I just want you to understand one more time: you can be immature and irresponsibly dictate content here, but your lack of logic and intelligence as you frame this issue is plain for rational folks to see. Sorry about that. You'll probabaly erase this too, which is fine. My happiness sure does not depend on whether or not you decide to be intelligent or not. But be crystal clear Gong: you've been caught guarding a piece of crap that only betrays your insecurity and trumpets your lack of ability to think through this issue to its logical and illogical ends. It's sad. I feel like I'm living in Communist china with Cisco's huge censoring device that filters out freedom of thought very efficiently. Congratulations Gong. Have a great day.Computer1200 19:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you did erase others' comments. Just check your edit[3]. You erased Teji's comment and you inserted a comment right in the middle of mine. And nobody is taking away your freedom of thought. Xanga and MySpace accounts are free and you can write whatever you want on them. Go on then. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Gong: I agree with Teji's edits. Why would I intentionally erase his input? It was a mistake and you are not justified in editing ALL of my many additions just because of one minor mistake. Any Questions? Now do the right thing and revert to my edits if you have any integrity left at all in your fear-ridden frame.Computer1200 20:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, buddy, then revert back to where I made my comments, and correct my error, which was unintentional and a function of the fact that I am new to Wiki. Do that — or tell me how to do it, and I will do it myself. Haha. And that's cute about how you keep insisting I go write my input on blogs. Thanks, again, your so entertaining sometimes. PS: don't you see how that does NOT help your arguments at all?Computer1200 19:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Everything that I can tell you is already written here: Wikipedia:Tutorial. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow. You're incredible. So let me get this straight: I make a minor mistake with one sentence, and you arbitrarily erase about 30 minutes of commenting, correct? Do you call that responsible editing of this article, buddy? Do you think that I and others respect that kind of dictatorship over this article? Do you think I'll go away and let you do that any time in this century? Well, think again. This is an issue of truth here, and you will learn, Gong, that I don't take truth lightly. Now I could go in and do the very same thing as you and erase all your goofy entries that half of the time are simply garbled semantic gymnastics with no point in sight -- but I do not. Why? Because I am not afraid of what you have to say. The lack of logic is clear. So when you speak, it is good. But you seem really afraid of what I am saying for some reason. Why is that gong? Computer1200 20:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
And also, feel free to erase all of this, and I will add it back each time I come back to this page. Again: you do not have the right to erase my additions like you did about an hour ago. It's completely wrong and not in the spirit of Wiki -- and you KNOW it. Remember: don't erase these comments above; I promise you I will repost them if you do. People need to know how you operate.Computer1200 20:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Just looking at the section above "What, do you think Asian women are all submissive geisha dolls with secret sexual techniques?" (HongQiGong). The problems in this article are many

1) The references are basically garbage (see #4, it is an internet forum) Wikipedia states the following about citations:

"If all the sources for a given statement or topic are of low reliability, this suggests to the reader that the content be treated with a degree of skepticism, and to the editor that the material may not be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia."

And stresses legitimate material

"Items that are signed are more reliable than unsigned articles because it tells whether an expert wrote it and took responsibility for it." Which an Internet forum is definitely not!! Neither are unknown internet "newspapers."

  1. 4 "Would you date an Asian girl with an Asian fetish? This is an internet forum.

http://phoenix.swarthmore.edu/2006-02-23/opinions/15869 is not a reliable source. It is from the *opinions* section of a college newspaper. Hardly a scholarly source.

http://www.punchandus.com/article/1005-fetish.html is not a reliable source (although it is in the external links section). It is a blog with the tagline "SACRIFICING OUR PRINCIPLES FOR THE SAKE OF COMEDY"

2) Fetish is a sexual attraction to objects or parts of people, not people themselves (even if they are treated as "objects" this still does not count.)

"Psychology. any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation." From www.dictionary.com

Also look at the DSM.

Fetish used in other ways does have colloquial meaning, and writing the article with this in mind is extremely important. Currently, the content does NOT reflect the title, mainly because the title is a neologism that has not had enough time for extensive scholarly research (HongQiGong, you seem smart, but Wikipedia is hardly the place for you to conduct your own research and preach your own opinions.) Either change the title to something like "The (Perils)/(Sociological Dangers) of Asian Interracial Relations," (or something like that), allow other aspects of interracial sexual attraction (namely biological explanation), or delete this article!


3) Sexual fetish, racial fetish, and commodity fetish are sourced with Wikipedia articles and there is no source that says a sexual preference for asian women is any of these. (sexual fetish is for objects, racial fetish is as unreliable as asian fetish, and commodity fetish does not apply)

Wikipedia states that "Note: Wikipedia articles and categories cannot be used as sources." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Why_sources_should_be_cited)


4) Interracial relations are repeatedly demeaned in this article:

"It is also the basis of angst for people in interracial relationships or contemplating them," Who is Erika Kim? Why is the reference [11] to someone else?

HongQiGong said above "What, do you think Asian women are all submissive geisha dolls with secret sexual techniques? If you do not, then this article is not "aimed" at you then. I don't know how many times I must tell you, this article is not about interracial relationships."

Not about interracial relationships? Look at this source:

Pang, Gin Yong (1998). "Intraethnic, Interracial, and Interethnic Marriages among Korean American Women", Korean American Women: From Tradition to Modern Feminism. Boston: Praeger, p. 134.

And these quotes:

"In colloquial usage, a non-Asian person who is exclusively interested in Asian people for sexual and/or romantic relationships is said to have an Asian fetish." Hardly constitutes a belief that Asian women are a commodity.

"the term can be understood as the attraction or sexual preference, usually of non-Asian men or women, for Asian women or men." This is not equal to thinking that "Asian women are all submissive geisha dolls with secret sexual techniques"

Which is it HongQiGong? Some dangerous, mental disturbance that leads white people to assault Asian women? Or a harmless sexual preference? You conflate the two, and equate one with the other, implicitly condemning all interracial relationships!

5) No discussion on sexual prefence is complete without a reference to sexual selection and evolution, i.e. the biological basic. Now I don't know who Mr. Phil is, or the mysterious German, but I don't care. A wacky view of the Biological basis does not preclude any discussion of one. Genetics is scientific, but Eugenics is not! Should all Genetic research be labeled false because of some wacky Eugenics movement? Of course not! The Biological basis for sexual preference needs addressing. One fact is that the Asian eye shape (often used to classify race) is so common in the world because of male sexual selection. Clearly this is pertinent to a discussion of sexual preference for Asians.

Now HongQiGong, if you have a bone to pick (perhaps you had a bad experience with a white guy), go write a blog, but leave Wikipedia to neutral points of view, or allow the opposing views in the same article. You have controlled this article like the gestapo for long enough. Either let it be, or we all must delete this article and start again. Renaming it would be a first step.

144.81.32.187 18:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

1) The first source you mentioned here is used for the "Slangs" section. Firstly you need to know, I don't even know who started or added to that section. Secondly, I'm going to delete it altogether. The second source you mentioned is actually a magazine, not a blog. About Punch and Us. The specific link provided is an article by that magazine about racial fetish[4]. I'd consider that a reliable enough source. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
2) Disagree that it's neologism. Check the sources provided in the article already. Also, the article covers that the term is not a fetish in the sense accepted by psychologists. For example - "It has not been recognized as a paraphilia or fetish by the medical or psychological community." And other such texts. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Uhm...those sources are from this decade. Seeing as the term was supposedly first used by Hwang within the last twenty years for a new condition, or as a new way to refer to an old idea, it is a neologism by definition. Furthermore, "fetish" is used in a novel way, so that is enough to be a neologism.
The article has that sentence, yes, but then totally contradicts with this "Fetish in this context has been used to mean sexual fetish, racial fetish, or Commodity fetishism (viewing Asian people as a form of property)," asserting that it is a commodity fetish by adding the parenthetical "Asian people as a form of property," which is pretty NNPOV. That kind of weasel wording doesn't belong in the terminology section. Put it in a commentary section. How about "Commentary, Opinion, and Activism"?
3) Those articles are not being used as sources. It's a simple case of wikilinking. All articles should wikilink to other articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not simple wikilinking, the article also asserts that an Asian fetish is also a type of sexual and commodity fetish. I quote "Commodity fetishism (viewing Asian people as a form of property)". In the paragraph where it says "(see paraphilia)" it asserts that Asian fetish is some sort of paraphilia.
Unfortunately people are not objects, nor is a culture. Commodity fetish is out. It makes no mention of racial/people/culture fetishes. Also, paraphilia is out. It has nothing to do with fetish as a colloquialism. Read the pages for yourself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teji (talk • contribs) 21:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
Furthermore, activists are not appropriately neutral sources for terminology origins, especially considering the colloquial precedent for fetish outside of the scientific community. The comments of activists should be isolated to parts of the document that are non-neutral, like "Commentaries on Asian Fetish." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teji (talk • contribs) 21:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
So what if "punch and us" is a mag? You wouldn't allow that white supremacist guy to use that argument. Don't be hypocritical, it is a comedy magazine. Use reliable sources for neutral POV. Use NNPOV for sections that clearly indicate it is non-neutral, e.g. "Opinions about the Asian Fetish", etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teji (talk • contribs) 21:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
Disagreed. WP:NPOV is achieved by including different points of views, not ignoring them. Also, the article makes it pretty clear that the term is not accepted as a "fetish" as it is defined by psychologists. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
What did you disagree with? I didn't say ignore them, I said put them in a better section. Namely a section called "Commentary, Opinion, and Activism."
4) That quote from Erika Kim and relevant texts are actually talking about how the use of the term "Asian fetish" can be used to put undue pressure and guilt on Asian women. Are you sure you have a problem with this? I've clarified who Erika Kim is. And the Gin Yong Pang source is actually incorrectly used. I've provided a better source. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
"how the use of the term "Asian fetish" can be used to put undue pressure and guilt on Asian women," then say that in the article. And put it in a section about negative consequences or social commentary.
Also, correct your sources. That was one example of many sourcing issues.
Also, please address my section about the edits I made instead of reverting everything like a dictator. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teji (talk • contribs).
I could say the same of you. You didn't exactly give everybody a chance at discussion before you flooded the article with edits, did you? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Read the Wikipedia guide to consensus, it involves discuss the edits first. I made edits on parts that were in clear violation of sourcing. You always have the option to re-edit instead of reverting everything back to what *you* want. Perhaps someone else besides you approves of my edits. This is why you should answer to my Edits section, not just revert! So please, if you have a good reason to disallow any of the point-by-point edits I have listed below, please specifically state it there instead of remove the good edits and the bad. Nothing gets done when you act like this, reverting everything back to your desired copy, preventing progress. Address my section below, please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teji (talk • contribs).
Um... Your comment here is kind of contradictory. First you say that we should discuss the edits first. Then you say that you made the edits without discussion or consensus. How about this, you discuss the edits and come to consensus first before you do the actual editing. I've reverted because we haven't came to consensus. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
There is a world of difference between edits and reverts. Edits say, "this needs to be improved," reverts say "I am not going to allow any edits to this page." The edits removed a few lines and moved a couple paragraphs. Furthermore it was documented in the edits section. Hardly cause for reverting.
5) Disagreed with adding that repeatedly and consensually deleted section that Mr. Phil and his cohorts kept adding. Firstly, it was WP:Original research that was strung together by a bunch of unrelated articles. Secondly, Mr. Phil and his cohorts also thinks that "Jews are a problem" in this world. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with this section, please take your squabbles with other users somewhere else. As I repeatedly said, their are other reputable scientifically based biologically explanations for sexual preference (ever hear of Darwin?) that apply here. Mr. Phil is out. Clearly his section must have been inappropriate, this is still not reason to revert any and all edits without discussing them. Please address the Edits section below, unless you agree with them.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teji (talk • contribs).
Who the hell is 71.175.43.242? Get a name please, and don't confuse HongQiGong.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teji (talk • contribs).
I'm not aware that Darwin wrote about attraction to Asian people. Do you have a source? Hong Qi Gong (Talk -
An article on sexual preference can only benefit from a discussion and link to sexual selection. And since opinions are so prevalent in this article, perhaps whatever Mr. Phil wanted to put in should be allowed, in the proper section of course, namely "Commentary, Opinion, and Activism."

Contribs) 21:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sourced or not, put a fact tag before reverting. Stop reverting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teji (talk • contribs).
Stop adding text without consensus. And please sign your comments. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The consensus process clearly states that edits go first, then consensus is made about the edits. You are creating a viscious cycle by only relying on reverting before consensus. Please start discussing the edits below, they are right there, ready for you to argue with. Please for the love of God respond to the Edits section below if you really think they are unreasonable! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teji (talk • contribs).
Please, will you not sign your comments? Also, calm down. The Love of God is not necessary for editing this article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Please address the other edits or accept them. Why don't you address the edits instead of reverting? Teji 22:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you actually give me a chance to read your concerns first, before you flood the article with edits you want? To be honest, you should give others ample time to address your concerns. You and I are not the only contributing editors here. But just 15 minutes after it came out of article protection earlier, you've flooded the article with your edits. Please have a little patience. Not everybody that has an opinion on your concerns has weighed in. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I still don't understand why you revert so much? You can't read them first before reverting? [5] Some key steps for you to read: make an edit (is the first step), wait, was the article edited further? do you agree with the change? (here's the key) Think of a reasonable change that might integrate your idea with theirs. It's pretty hard to do that last step if you are constantly reverting. I have done edits I believe are reasonable. You should be reading my point-by-point reasoning before reverting.Teji 22:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Here is what WP:Consensus says: The basic process works like this: someone makes an edit to a page, and then everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it. I made a decision to change some of your edits because I do not agree with them. But I welcome discussion about them here in the Talk page. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
You did not discuss NOR change them. You reverted several times. Do not forget the three revert policy. You decided to REVERT, not EDIT and DISCUSS. Please be honest.Teji 22:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

Removed reference to sexual fetish (that page defines sexual fetish as arousal from inanimate objects or nongenital parts of the body and refers to racial fetishes as a sexual preferences)

Removed reference to commodity fetish

Quote from sexual fetish

""Fetishism" in its sexual meaning must not be confused with the original anthropological concept of fetishism or socio-philosophical concepts derived from this one, e. g. Karl Marx's "commodity fetishism". Here, fetishism names the god-like admiration of objects which has nothing to do with any sexual interests whatsoever."

The wikilinks to sexual fetish and commodity fetish are just wikilinks. They're not used to say that Asian fetish is a sexual fetish as it is defined by psychologists. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Then put them at the bottom where they belong. They do not belong in terminology. They are only related by the word, not in concept.Teji 23:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed (arguably a fixation on), if it's arguable, why don't you discuss it first?

I agree that needs editing. Words like "arguably" should be avoided unless specifically used by references. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Then why revert it? Teji 22:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed irrational attachment, what the hell is that?

I believe that would be an attachment that is irrational. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
That's the problem, *you* believe. You just fell into non-neutral POV. Teji 22:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed paraphilia, the page doesn't talk about asian culture or people as a paraphilia

The article talks about how Asian fetish is not a paraphilia as defined by psychologists. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Then we don't need to address paraphilia. Unless we have some section discussing what Asian fetish isn't, there is not need but simply to say "An Asian fetish is not a fetish in the psychological sense. While some may argue it is a medical condition, it is not accepted in the scientific community." I suppose you could also say "It isn't paraphilia; it is commodity fetishism; it isn't sexual fetishism...", but that list could go on. Teji 23:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The origin of the term is established, it is a neologisms formed from a colloquial use of fetish. Activists are hardly a neutral source.

I moved the activist stuff to a new section. Rename at will. But please, the non-neutral stuff is way too entrenched in the neutral stuff. It is important though, and warrants it's own section. But it cannot overshadow the neutral information.

WP:NPOV dictates that we include different points of view, and the article does that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Right, which is why we should put the different points of view next to each other in a section on "Commentary, Opinion, and Activism" instead of trying to mush them all together with the neutral stuff like terminology and origins.
I followed that link and copied two key paragraphs for you [emphasis added]
"In presenting an opinion, moreover, it is important to bear in mind that there are **disagreements about how opinions are best stated**; sometimes, it will be necessary to **qualify the description of an opinion** or to present several formulations, simply to arrive at a solution that fairly represents all the leading views of the situation."
"But it is not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to **assert facts about competing opinions**, and to do so **without implying that any one of the opinions is correct**. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view."
When you put opinions by activists in the section on terminology and origins, clearly there is going to be a confusion between fact and opinion. There are definitely competing opinions about what the activist said, but you have removed them in the past. This is why I suggest making an entire section devoted to commentaries and opinions. That way, every opinion gets its fair shake, and opinions are not used in such neutral section as "Terminology" and "Origins". Teji 22:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not revert my edits. They are reasonable. Please discuss them, and build on them.

Again had to move opinions and activism *out* of the neutral parts and into their own section.

Again had to remove "The object of the attraction ranges from specific features of specific people, to specific groups of people, to Asian culture generally. " because this is neither on the paraphilia page (which is cited, even though it is a wikipedia page) nor is it true. HongQiGong, you concede it is not a true fetish in the psychological sense, so why keep trying to put this garbage back in? It doesn't have any scientific credibility yet! Teji 22:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That's an explanation of how the term is used. Why do you want to move it? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Because paraphilia does not discuss this. There is no reliable source talking about a paraphilia or fetish about a group of people or culture. In fact this is wrong. You are conflating the colloquial fetish with the psychological condition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teji (talk • contribs).
Nothing in the aritlce says that it is paraphilia. In fact, the article states that it is not paraphilia. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


"Fetish in this context has been used to mean sexual fetish, racial fetish, or Commodity fetishism (viewing Asian people as a form of property), as well as sexual attraction, interpersonal attraction, irrational attachment, fixation, or even cultural attraction. The only uses of fetish that have not been documented are the usual definitions of fetish as an object with magical properties, or an object or body part arousing sexual feelings that cannot be reciprocated. (See paraphilia) The object of the attraction ranges from specific features of specific people, to specific groups of people, to Asian culture generally." This whole section reeks of falseness. It is not a sexual fetish in the way described on that page. It is not a commodity fetishism (see my quote from that page above). Why cite paraphilia and say the object of attraction is groups or cultures? This is completely false. It should be removed. Irrational attachment is meaningless here, it sounds like someone just made it up. Teji 22:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you are reading it differently than I am, but that text clearly says that documented uses of fetish has applied to objects. It's saying that specifically "Asian fetish" is not a fetish as it is traditionally defined, because traditional definition only applies to objects. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Sexual fetish, commodity fetish, paraphilia do not even need to be mentioned here. It is already clear that fetish here is not the psychological definition, but the colloquial one, and all three of these are about the psychological definition. That is why it should be removed. No need to "see paraphilia" it is unrelated, this paragraph only serves to conflate the true psychological fetish with the colloquial one. Wait until the academic community provides a source for Asian fetish as a documented psychological condition before building it up with big words like "commodity" and "paraphilia" which have no application here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teji (talk • contribs).
The text you quoted above specifically addresses your concern when it says that documented uses of "fetish" has only been in the context of objects. WP:NPOV states that we include different points of views, not eliminate those ones we do not personally like. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
And in case you did not know, some of this text about the definition of "fetish" was inserted upon the insistence of editors who had "similar" opinions about the whole thing as you do. They insisted that the article spells out that Asian fetish is not a "fetish" as defined by psychologists. That was the whole point of much of the texts you do not like. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Then they shouldn't be in the terminology section, they should be in an opinions section. I feel separating out the commentaries and opinions (of which they are clearly many) from the facts and less activist explanations (of which there are few) is extremely important. That is why I made the new section. And I did explain this, but you just went off reverting like a madman again.Teji 22:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This is just a note: before you cry out for the love of God again for me to respond to you, please note that I'll be offline for probably the next few hours. Be patient. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


Some more from NPOV

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; (there are none for Asian fetish because it is not really a fetish, it is a sexual preference or obsession at worst)

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; (there are no prominent adherents, only internet opinion pages and activists)

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. (clearly many of the viewpoints you have in here are in a very small minority)

I suggest making a section called "Commentaries, Opinions, and Activism", for most of the paragraphs.

Teji 22:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


Asian fetish as a cause of crime, states only minority opinions from a journalist. This violates the NPOV above "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;"

This section needs data, facts and figures supporting crimes involving Asian fetish. Otherwise this section should be moved to a "Commentary, Opinion, and Activism" section.

Without real data, "Asian fetish as a cause of crime," seriously begs the question. This should be moved to a section called "Commentary, Opinion, and Activism" until a real information about Asian fetish related crimes is cited.


"David Henry Hwang criticises the opinions of non-Asian men in his slight," Why is this in the terminology section?

Why is "Racial Castration: Managing Masculinity in Asian America," in the terminology section? Both this and Hwang's have some specific viewpoint about the harms of an Asian fetish. This needs to go into a section called "Commentary, Opinion, Activism," because it is not related to the origin of the term, but a non-neutral viewpoint about the results of Asian fetishism.

The bottom line is that Gong has managed to patch together an emarrassing lump of unsubstantiated, arbitrary feelings and opinions into what he insists is a scientifically-based social phenomenon. Further, there is no balance; IE: we're treated to some gory, arbitrary assessment attached to questonable sources about how the "asian fetish" leads to crimes against asian women. That is COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED IN ANYWAY, AND IF THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL PROOF FOR THIS, IT SHOULD NOT BE IN THE ARTICLE. The term fetish, as Teji points out here, in the way Gong insists it be used, is completely unscholarly and questionable. I tried to add these comments yesterday here, but Gong reverted them/ erased them. But my point is that he is being irresponsible as he blends his odd, bizarre ideas about non-asians inflicting harm on asians because of some sort of obsession -- and fact. This is what makes this article so unworthy of WIKI: it is an op-ed piece dressed up in news piece clothes. Like a small child playing dress-up; or the proverbial Emperor with no Clothes. And then when we call Mr. Gong on his glaring lack of consistent logic, he scolds us by telling us to "go write it in your blog, we don't care." Well, I might actually do that if it weren't for the fact that this article sounds like a blog already -- Gong's private blog. Again: separate the fact from opinion and bring balance by distinguishing between unhealthy obsessions that lead to harm with harmless attraction that can lead to good. these need to be founded on good Psychological thinking and theory. In the end, it's Gong's burden to prove that there is, indeed, an "asian fetish" as he believes it exists in his own mind. Until that happens, this whole article needs to be deleted or trashed completely. It's been around too long, and it offends a lot of people with its arbitrary, implied accusations against whole swaths of people.Computer1200 06:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits and Restructuring

There is too much opinion and commentary in factual sections. There is too much uncited or poorly cited materials.

Let us please make a separate section called "Commentary, Opinion, and Activism", because most of the information falls into it. Then it can be subdivided.

Let's also add a section called something like "Negative Consequences of the Asian Fetish" in society or something like that. That way all the material from non-prominent non-majority views (see WP:NPOV policy) can be placed into the same section.

Also, lets make a list facts that should be used for creating the neutral part of the page. Please add facts (not facts about opinions, which should be added in that section).

There is definitely a theme about the ills of Asian fetishes that run through many of the sections. It would be efficient and useful for NPOV purposes to consolidates these into one section appropriately titled, rather than to have them strewn about the various sections causing all sorts of NPOV issues (are the competing viewpoints addressed in each section too).


Facts

Asian fetish is a sexual preference for Asian women or men.

While (like every aspect of human behavior) it is related to psychology in the lay sense, an Asian fetish is in no way a fetish in the true psychological sense as accepted in the medical or scientific communities. Therefore it should be defined as a sexual preference. And please let's simply state that before getting into all the negative consequences of the Asian fetish.

  Exactly, a preference of  racially masculine Europid males for racially feminine Mongolid females
  according to the three universal Hartmann laws of sexuality. We had written an excellent paragraph       
  on this which was the only scientific part of the entire article.This insight does not harm 
  anyone. Shaffir , Prasso etc. insult people.80.138.184.206 01:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Nice big words, who wouldn't like it? Just make sure it's properly sourced. And please, a username is free. Teji 02:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Facts about Opinions


Commentary


Teji 00:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consolidating the Ills of Asian Fetish

This should be its own section. Here are the paragraphs that can go there:

David Henry Hwang criticises the opinions of non-Asian men in his ...
The first academic treatment of the fetishism of A...
However there are Asian women who claim that it is "not as innocent as i...
The entire Asian fetish as a cause of crime section
There is disagreement about whether relationships between whites and Asians are an exhibition of a type of racism...
This is an incredible statement in and of its own. Just the fact that we are actually considering that an asian/white relationship can in and of itself be racist is ridiculous.Computer1200 19:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

These should all get their own section as they all illustrate the problems associate with the Asian fetish. Clearly it is not the majority view that an Asian fetish only has negative consequences (and since their are no prominent sources mentioned, is not considered NPOV by the WP policy). Teji 00:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

How do you qualify that "clearly" it is not the majority view? If we specify exactly what sources support the statements, I don't believe it's a problem at all. And as far as Asian fetish as a cause of crime is concerned, there have been individual articles written exactly on this. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
More importantly, how do you define what the "majority" opinion is? If you're talking about Wikipedia users, then it is clearly slanted towards white people since the majority of people in America are Caucasian. If we're going to go by the tyranny of numbers then Asians (who are only 4% of the US population) are going to be in the "minority" every time. Likewise, the majority of scientists and researchers in America are white, thus "established" research will be from a slanted white point of view. That's the problem with defining common sense as what "most people" believe. It depends on who makes up that majority. OneViewHere 03:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh Please. So your twisted logic here is this: all scientists are racist whites, so how can we trust their views to reliable? You are creating a ridiculous precedent (that any self-respecting scientist -- all asian scientists included -- would reject outright) that simply allows you to believe whatever you want to believe. And yes: if only 4% of you believe it, that does NOT make a majority. And in academic and scientific discourse, concensus is a respected form of reliability that has existed for millenia. You do not have the right to nonchalantly discard concensus for the purposes of promoting your personal agenda. Sorry. And this is really good: "....thus "established" research will be from a slanted white point of view." How in the hell can good, established, scientific research be "slanted?" Empirical research of the best variety is NOT slanted. It is simply information that happens to be proven. Jeez. Empirical truth is color-blind, provable, and devoid of personal agendas.Computer1200 07:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure the Nazi scientists who performed experiments on the Jews in the concentration camps used "established" research methods as well. If you're going to go into the topic of research on racial issues, then using scientitic studies from predominently white scientists introduces the possibility of bias. Scientists are human beings who suffer from prejudices just like the rest of us. Not only from a racial sense, but from a cultural perspective as well. And I would stay away from the topic of "consensus" if I were you Computer1200. This article has survived in its present form despite 2 votes for deletion and countless vandalism attempts. The Wikipedia community by CONSENSUS has already voted that this article in its present form is a VALID article. Now that Hong and the Wiki admin are engaging in some constructive feedback, where are you? If you're so HOT to correct the bias you perceive in this article, then you should be ALL OVER that discussion. But we haven't heard a peep from you. -Which just proves that you don't care about improving this article. All you care about is dissing on it. OneViewHere 08:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, OneViewHere, in answer to your questions about whether I care: yes. But when I tried -- TWICE -- to add my opinions to the mix, guess who came in and reverted? Our friend, Gong. That's right, you can thank Gong for editing all of my input out, which took me about 45 minutes at the time. I simply did not have time to remember and do it all again. However, I DID add my input.
I like this: "scientitic studies from predominently white scientists introduces the possibility of bias." Hilarious. There is the possibility of bias in anything, OneViewHere. There is the possibility that the last Supreme Court decision was biased. Does that mean we do not acknowledge the Supreme Court as a viable authority? No. Likewise, when you play the silly race card, it simply makes you look desperate. Incidentally, I would guess your logic would apply to asian scientists, including the Korean scientists that brazenly reported false data to Nature concerning their gene research recently, so they could be in the limelight. Your argument that somehow white scientists are biased is silly. But even if there were biased white scientists (you know, similar to the flat-out dishonest Korean ones that I mentioned?), they would be rooted out eventually, as were the Korean scientists. Most scientists detest cheaters.
And this article has survived in its present form, OneViewHere, because you and Gong go get all your friends to come over and vote. This is because you consider this little corner of WIKI your personal property. Not so. You are addressing the very core of who I am, and I wont sit back and let it be so unbalanced. Sorry. My advice, as I have posted above, is that we need BALANCE. If you want to say there is a wierd "asian fetish" then you need to also make it clear that this is very similar to simply attraction and that for someone to have an attraction to one flavor of relationships DOES NOT make it a disease, or something that would lead to "crimes against women." Fascinating in its lack of logic. Fascinating.Computer1200 20:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


I'm glad to see that editors are discussing this. Please seek common ground. -Will Beback · † · 02:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay guys, guys, relax. I'm not talking about majority in that way. I am asking several things, "is this established science or scholarship?," "is this representative of a majority view" (and therefore easy to find several reputable sources.) I argue that the items listed at the top of this section are not a majority view, and even if it were, there isn't really a good set of resources to support these claims (e.g. asian fetish as a cause of crime is an opinion page from one student, but has NO statistics or facts, it is anecdotal). But I am aware that this is a viewpoint of some group of people. What is important is that the viewpoint of a few uncreditable people does not interfere with a) the neutral information (definitions, usages) and b) opposing viewpoints of other people. Now the best way is to simply title the section with what the content contains, and clearly these are all opinions about the negative consequences of the Asian fetish. They deserve to be in the article, but do not have the right to usurp it, because it is neither the majority commonsense view, nor the established view in scholarly or scientific communities (e.g. Asian fetish is not an established fetish, it is colloquial.) I'm not saying they are right or wrong, but that there are few facts to support these claims (e.g. no statistics about white on asian sex crime, just opinions).

If this were Nazi germany, perhaps we would have articles on that kind of research, and it would be considered NPOV. Furthermore, eugenics was in fact a reputable science, (note i said was) because it was studied and promoted by established, credible scientists. It isn't anymore, so it isn't credible.

OneViewHere, I hope you can support your claim that white scientists must be biased, because it's pretty racist in itself. Wouldn't Asian scientists also be biased? Furthermore, I don't care when this article was voted to be valid by consensus (does a vote really make an article valid, mr. "human beings suffer from prejudices"?). Also, encouraging people to stay away from consensus really doesn't build consensus very well. Also, don't knock critics. Though it is easier to diss an article than improve it, dissing is an important step to improvement. Even though he doesn't have a suggestion for how to improve the article, his disses may be valid. You probably think the Iraq war is bad. Can you fix it? Probably not. Does that mean the Iraq is good? Heck no. This article sucks. It's hard to improve. Does that mean it doesn't suck. No, this article really sucks. It's full of one-sided minority view opinions that assert the ills of the Asian fetish, without addressing the view that Asian fetish is a tongue-in-cheek colloquiallism at the same time. Teji 18:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that this article is very bad and I repeat: it should be aggressively edited or deleted completely.Computer1200 20:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ok, one thing at a time.

Ok, one thing at a time. Let's take a look at the intro. Do you have any problem with the current wording?

The term Asian fetish is a construct combining the definitions of "Asian" and "fetish." In this way, the term can be understood as the attraction or sexual preference, usually of non-Asian men or women, for Asian women or men. In colloquial usage, a non-Asian person who is exclusively interested in Asian people for sexual and/or romantic relationships is said to have an Asian fetish. Some believe Asian fetish to be racist and sexist against Asians and Asian Americans because the attraction or sexual preference is based either partly or wholly on race or racial stereotypes. However, others disagree with this assertion, and believe that the use of the term to describe one's sexual preference for Asian women is a way to indiscriminantly condemn all relationships between Asian women and non-Asian men. The first known usage of the term "Asian fetish" came from Asian American author David Henry Hwang.
Controversy rages and criticism abounds on this topic. Controversies include disputes over the definition of the term "Asian fetish", the credibility and validity of sources on this topic, and its potential relationship to racism and reverse racism.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Intro is okay. Next, please :) Teji 04:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's see what User:Teji has to say first. He/she seems to have very strong editorial opinions on the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, it's me. Forgot to log in. Thanks for the nod. Teji 04:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
WTF is "reverse racism"??? Move to strike that meaningless bit. 217.206.93.34 13:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
How about we just get rid of that last sentence? What do you think, Teji? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Taking out reverse racism suffices. Teji 05:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ok moving on

Here's the first paragraph of the Terminology section currently.

In all of its usages, Asian fetish is a colloquial reference to a sexual fetish. It has not been recognized as a paraphilia or fetish by the medical or psychological community. It is often used to refer to a strong preference for (arguably a fixation on) Asian people themselves, their physical appearances, or personality that they are presumed to have. Those who consider Asian fetish to be harmful believe it to be a fetish in the sense of "a fixation" on stereotypes of Asians.

I suggest we change it to:

In its common usage, Asian fetish is a colloquial reference to a sexual fetish, but it has not been recognized as a paraphilia or fetish by the medical or psychological community. It is used to refer to an attraction or sexual preference specifically for Asian people, their physical appearance, or personality traits that they are presumed to have. Those who consider Asian fetish to be harmful believe it to be an attraction based on stereotypes of Asian people.

Let me know what you think (this applies to any interested contributing editors). And terms will be wikilinked when appropriate. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like it to be "In its common usage, Asian fetish is a colloquial reference to a sexual preference", because it is not a sexual fetish in any official meaning of the word. While a minority view may be that it is a psychological fetish, there is no widely accepted or prominent that say otherwise. I would also be fine with "sexual preference, obsession, or focus" to foreshadow the seriousness of it that some commentators have. Because opinions range from the term being harmless tongue-in-cheek to society rotting stereotyping, would shouldn't imply either. Saying it is a sexual fetish gives in undue and inacurrate credibility from the psychological community. Definitely it can not say it is a "reference to a sexual fetish," because that is just plain inaccurate.
I know the paragraph does say it is not a fetish but a preference later in the paragraph, but the first paragraph is the main idea, and it contradicts those subsequent sentences. The etymology from the intro should suffice to explain that fetish is used in the colloquial sense.
I changed this paragraph to In all of its usages, Asian fetish is a colloquial reference to a sexual preference. It has not been recognized as a paraphilia or fetish by the medical or psychological community. It is often used to refer to a strong sexual preference for Asian people. This may originate from culture, physical or personality traits, or stereotyped or sexualized views of Asian culture. There are those who consider an Asian fetish in the latter sense to be harmful. See the sociological dangers of Asian fetish for more information.
Except for the term sexual fetish, which definitely must change to sexual preference or obsession, the rest is mostly about style. It is used to refer to an attraction or sexual preference specifically for Asian people is redundant and or personality traits that they are presumed to have. is clumsy, even presumed personality traits is better.
We should make clear that there is a range of usage of this term, not just as an explaination for crime, intra-racial (should be interracial) marriage condemnation, etc... Yes it is used for porn, but it is also can be used in jest whenever a guy dates an asian girl (or vice-versa). It has this range of uses, none of which excludes the other.
Those who consider Asian fetish to be harmful believe it to be a fetish in the sense of "a fixation" on stereotypes of Asians. Gets into commentary waaay too early. The terminology section is not the place for this, as this is a consequence of the Asian fetish in general. Furthermore it asserts that a minority viewpoint from non-prominent figure(s), and generalizes without support. It is sufficient to say Views of the term range from inoccuous (sp?) tongue-and-cheek to harmful stereotyping, because it spans the range of views. Teji 17:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
So how about In all of its usages, Asian fetish is a colloquial reference to a sexual preference. It has not been recognized as a paraphilia or fetish by the medical or psychological community. It is often used to refer to a strong sexual preference for Asian people. The origins of the term and its usage vary widely. Then go on to origins and usages.
With some other paragraph (preferably in a section on commentary) starting with, Views of the term range from inoccuous (sp?) tongue-and-cheek to harmful stereotyping... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teji (talk • contribs) 2007-02-27 17:16:30.
Actually, reading it again, I believe we should keep that last sentence in. Specifically - "Those who consider Asian fetish to be harmful believe it to be a fetish in the sense of "a fixation" on stereotypes of Asians." This is not so much a commentary on Asian fetish, but it serves to explain why the word "fetish" is used in the term, as opposed to the fact that the psychological community does not define it as a traditional fetish. And the reason the first sentence reads the way it does is because it is a colloqial reference. It explains linguistically why the word "fetish" is part of the term. But how about this:


Even though the word "fetish" is used in the term "Asian fetish", it has not been recognized as a paraphilia or fetish by the medical or psychological community. It is used to refer to an attraction or sexual preference specifically for Asian people, their physical appearance, or personality traits that they are presumed to have. Those who consider Asian fetish to be harmful believe it to be a fetish in the sense of "a fixation" on stereotypes of Asians.
Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Getting there, but it makes sense to start the paragraph saying what it is, not how it isn't used. ""Even though"" starts a constast statement that can be used to refine the meaning of an Asian fetish. It isn't a very good topic sentence.
Asian Fetish is an attraction or sexual preference specifically for Asian people, their physical appearance, or stereotyped personality traits. It uses "fetish" colloquially and is not a fetish as recognized by the medical or psychological community.
If you want to keep the last sentence, then it should be balanced by the other extreme view, e.g. Views of the term range from innocuous tongue-in-cheek to harmful stereotyping. We can't favor one view over the other in such a neutral section like terminology. The next sentence says that the usage varies widely, so why have only one viewpoint here? We can expand on it in a section on commentary and opinions. Furthermore, that can go into the usage subsection as one of the usages of Asian fetish.
The thing to note here is that ""Asian fetish"" is really not an official term but a colloquial one. You can find widely varying usages of it from culture-rotting danger to simply an expression of any white-asian couple. The sources for it are so bad in this article, not because the research is poor, but because there really aren't legimate resources on this. So we have to either delete this article, or just include the range of usages. There are plenty of resources with the quality of these (student newspapers, opinions pages) with other usages that are tongue-in-cheek, that are used to refer to any relationship between asian and other. Look at pornography for instance: Asian fetish is used to denote a genre of pornography. You may say that it is from a stereotyped view and go on about, but the usage in pornography does not make that clear; it is just another usage of the term.

Teji 05:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

How's this?

Asian Fetish is an attraction or sexual preference specifically for Asian people, their physical appearance, or stereotyped traits. The term "fetish" is used colloquially and is not a fetish as recognized by the medical or psychological community. Those who consider Asian fetish to be harmful believe it to be a fetish in the sense of "a fixation" on stereotypes of Asians.

It's NPOV in that it explains that it's not a medically recognised fetish, and it also explains why it's termed a "fetish" despite that fact. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, looks good!
Can we refer to the range of usages in the "usage" subsection? Teji 22:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I'll keep a working version of what we've agreed on so far here - User:HongQiGong/Asian fetish. As far as the range of usages that are mentioned in the Terminology section, I think it's a bit too convoluted anyway, and if you're OK with it, let's just get rid of the rest of that section and move on to the next. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Aight 216.165.96.71 01:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you Teji? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

<-- Can we unprotect this page now? -Will Beback · † · 05:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Give it a little more time. We are working toward consensus. There are still those "one-article" editors that check in once in a while to "rage against the machine" at this article. Since it's protected, they basically use this Talk page as their own personal soapbox. When those editors are willing to calm down and engage in some reasonable discussion instead of just soapboxing, I think it would be time to unprotect the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, a little more time please. Let's try to get a consensus on at least the first two sections on this talk page with whomever is interested. That way we will have a firm basis to build on. Otherwise the page may be susceptible to vandalism, which only complicates the legitimate conflicts. At least we hammered out the first paragraph! Teji 19:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Typo in article, "Use in pornography" section

Race oriented pornographyy -> Race oriented pornography. Can someone make the change for poor old anonymous? --212.139.23.66 08:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Will correct spelling mistakes once we reach consensus. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, feel free to contribute to the ongoing discussion in the above section. Teji 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Next

Ok, moving on to the "Origin of the term" section:

The earliest discussion of Yellow Fever in a sexual usage which later became known as the Asian fetish, seems to be in the play M. Butterfly by David Henry Hwang written in 1988. The play, based on a true story, is about a French diplomat who is seduced by a male Chinese spy pretending to be a female "Oriental" opera singer, by playing to the diplomat's stereotypical beliefs of how Chinese women should act. In the afterword Hwang writes:
“ Similarly, heterosexual Asians have long been aware of "Yellow Fever" -- White men with a fetish for exotic Oriental women. I have often heard it said that "Oriental women make the best wives." (Rarely is this heard from the mouths of Asian men, incidentally.) This mythology is exploited by the Oriental mail-order bride trade which has flourished over the decade. American men can now (in 1988) send away for catalogues of "obedient, domesticated" Asian women looking for husbands. Anyone who believes such stereotypes are a thing of the past need look no further than Manhattan cable television (in 1988), which advertises call girls from "the exotic east, where men are king; obedient girls, trained in the art of pleasure."[1] ”
David Henry Hwang criticises the opinions of non-Asian men in his slight, "Rarely is this heard from the mouths of Asian men". He further uses these two statements as evidence for the Asian fetish he claims exists. His argument rests on the implied premise that Asian men are the actual authorities on whether or not Asian women make the best wives, so non-Asian men must be misguided, a presumed factor in the Asian fetish. Non-Asian men may evaluate Asian women to be "the best", because they have different qualifications for being a "good" wife. Cultural differences may be involved in non-Asian men stating "Oriental women make the best wives". However, ultimately, the notion that any woman would make a good wife based on her race and/or culture alone is a stereotype and as such is part of the Asian fetish.[citation needed]
The first academic treatment of the fetishism of Asian Americans was by Columbia professor David L. Eng, in his dissertation work at the University of California, Berkeley.[2]

What do you think of this section? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


This is tough. While I can understand that yellow fever is related to Asian fetish, this whole section jerry-rigs probably the only valid citation into the Article with the unsubstantiated statement "The earliest discussion of Yellow Fever in a sexual usage which later became known as the Asian fetish..." If this statement is not true, the whole section is invalid. The most important connection here is just a parenthetical, which later became known as the Asian fetish! No good at all. Substantiate that somehow, or put this in a section on related terminology. Or in an article on yellow fever or madame butterfly. This one is going to take a lot of work.
Furthermore, The first academic treatment of the fetishism of Asian Americans was by Columbia professor David L. Eng is wrong. Remember, it's not a fetish, so how could this guy have made the first academic treatment of it? Also there is still a citation needed sign in there! I agree with it. There are a lot of connections a concepts that look like someone threw together in an effort to work Hwang's statements.
More later... Teji 17:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
It needs to be worded better than "academic treatment". That's too ambiguous. Let me think of how to re-write this. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That is fucking terrible. Hong is a racist piece of shit who is insecure about his own culture —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.211.216.23 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-31 17:19:29.

What did you do that guy, Hong?! j/k. Unsigned, chill man! Aaaanyway. Sorry I haven't been looking at this lately, but...would you mind if we discuss a little restructuring? I will add another section below about it. We can work in parallel on the specific wording here and on the structure below. Teji 05:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restructuring

Okay, my whole premise here is to separate the opinions from the facts. And somewhat relatedly, the controversial from the accepted information. To reiterate a few sections that need their own section (and my insistence that their needs to be a separate section on commentary) here are some areas that should go into a section title "Commentary, Opinion, and Activism."

However there are Asian women who claim that it is "not as innocent as i...
The entire Asian fetish as a cause of crime section
There is disagreement about whether relationships between whites and Asians are an exhibition of a type of racism...

Hong, I know that there are articles about the Asian fetish as a cause of crime, but the stats just don't show it right now. A thousand articles of opinions are still opinions. And if there were a thousand, maybe you could say that this is a majority view, but the articles, at least the ones references here, are from a cottage group of individuals, mostly in student newspapers and internet forums. Not credible enough to be fact. But relevant enough to be commentary. Ergo, a new section called "Commentary, Opinion, and Activism." Teji 04:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/s/i/Talk%7EAsian_fetish_c85c.html"