Talk:Racial fetishism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on January 10, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contents 1 it is real, it isn't real 2 all original research 3 Please merge 4 remove reference 5 Racial fetish 6 Jayjay's most recent addition 7 Asian Fetish 8 Definition 9 I kind of liked this 10 Building New Cultures, Reframing Old Images: Success Strategies of Interracial Couples

[edit] it is real, it isn't real

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

[edit] all original research

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

[edit] Please merge

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] remove reference

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

[edit] Racial fetish

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Jayjay's most recent addition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Asian Fetish

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

[edit] Definition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] I kind of liked this

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

- Homi Bhabha^[3] defined the idea of a racial fetish in contrast to the idea of the Freudian sexual fetish which he describes a denial of difference, where the male sees the female as a castrated male, lacking parts but not having different parts. He also describes racial fetish to be a fixation on other races being not different, but lesser or "mutilated" versions of the white male. - - Racial fetish may also refer to race and the Marxist idea of commodity fetish. Commodity fetishism refers to a supposed capitalist practice of measuring social or ethnic groups by what commodities they provide, ignoring social or political distinctions. Racial fetishism as commodity fetishism would be more racially defined commodity fetishism.

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

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

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

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

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