Talk:Asian fetish

Poor quality of information

I have noticed that this article contains many false statements and misrepresentation of its sources. I plan to fix these errors myself over time, and I will use this talk page to discuss and justify my revisions, additions, and deletions.

Let's start with "Research on racial preferences", going in order of cited source.

• Cunningham et al 1995. Claim: Diverse sample of men in the US rated Asian and Hispanic women as more attractive What the paper says: 46 White American college students and 51 recently-landed Asian and Hispanic foreign exchange students were shown 48 photographs. 26 photographs were of beauty pageant winners of diverse races, and the remaining 22 were of randomly-selected White American college students. Summary: This paper does not support the claim.
• Fisman et al. 2008. Claim: "47% of all hookups were inter-racial, with the majority being White male-Asian female pairings" What the paper says: First of all, "hookups" is not at all what the paper examined. The survey output was simply a "yes/no" to the question of whether the speed dater would like to see their assigned partner again. The study noted in the very next sentence that a truly race-blind cohort would entail 53% of "yes" answers being interracial, and that this result is significant. The "majority" being this combination is also meaningless, because the study participants were mostly White (64%) and Asian (21%). The study's conclusion that there was not evidence of a preference for Asian women is accurate. Summary: This paper does not support the claim.
• Johnson 2016: Claim: "participants in [the study in the previous point] consistently made decisions that contradicted their stated preferences." What the paper says: Johnson does not say anything about the above Fisman study. He is commenting on a different Fisman paper. Summary: This paper does not support the claim.
• Mason 2016. Claim: "A 2013 study, which used a sample of 2.4 million online interactions, found that Black, White, and Hispanic men preferred Asian women" What the paper says: it's actually not a paper at all, just a blog post on the site Quartz. It's not misrepresenting the data, although the data is incomplete (just 16 data points) and without any discussion of methods, potential issues, or peer review. Given that there are higher-quality studies talking about the same thing in the same population, I'm inclined to remove this once better information is present. Summary: This claim overstates the authority of the statistic.
• Nedelman 2018 This is the first fair claim so far. No problems with this, although it should mention that this was a study about online dating (i.e. dating apps)
• [unsourced claim] Claim: "experiment conducted in England found that Asian women were rated as more attractive than White and Black women" Summary: This is an unsourced claim and I was not able to easily find the study mentioned. Should be removed unless a source can be found.
• Stephen et al, 2018. Claim: "both Asian and Australian participants perceived Asian women's features as more feminine than white women's" What the study says: This is the wildest one yet, not because the claim is terribly inaccurate, but because of the other findings in the paper. It employed a face manipulator where participants could adjust a face's "femininity" using a slider control. It showed that across the board, all groups preferred all faces (White or Asian, male or female) to be more feminized than the original photograph to optimize their attractiveness. Summary: It's not a false claim, but the relationship between femininity and attractiveness needs better explanation. Establishing that link is incongruent with the evidence that Asian males are discriminated against in studies of online dating preferences, since the same study found both that Asian male faces were perceived as more feminine, and that feminine male faces were more attractive.
• Zheng 2016. Claim: "This research is consistent with the hyper-sexualization of Asian women, which explains the Asian fetish, the high outmarriage rate of Asian women, their increased sexual capital relative to Asian men, and their ranking at the top of the hierarchy of female attractiveness." What the paper says: "it would be utterly unrealistic to deny that lengthy exposure to a culture historically saturated with sexualized stereotypes of Asian women contributes to an individual’s sexually preferring them." Summary: I think this is just poorly written, since it seems to suggest the reverse causality as Zheng is talking about. "hyper-sexualization of Asian women" should be explained further as a pattern in American media.
• Yang 2020. Claim 1: "male and female participants rated Asian women as more attractive than White women". What the study says: this finding was either marginally significant or not significant at all (low statistical value) according to the study author. Claim 2: "experiment replicated prior studies which found that Asian women's features are perceived as more feminine than White women's". What the study says: yes, but also in this study, femininity was uncorrelated with attractiveness. Claim 3: "higher femininity ratings for Asian women would be beneficial for Asian women's sexual capital." What the study says: this was part of the study's background discussion, but given its finding that femininity and attractiveness were not related to one another, I don't see its relevance. Summary: The study supports that Asian women are perceived as more feminine, but not that they were more attractive nor that femininity and attractiveness were related.

So that's it, thanks for reading my blog. Overall I find the pattern of misrepresentations and misreadings so specific that I have a hard time believing many of these sections were written in good faith. Indeed, looking at the edit history makes me suspect this even further. I will continue to try to fix this article and feel free to leave any feedback or join in on the effort. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like you've read the sources.

• With regards to Cunningham, et al, full text link available here, I'm not seeing how you've determined that this citation isn't supported. It says clearly on page 267: "All groups of judges made more positive ratings of the Asian and Hispanic targets compared with the black and white targets". This is a key point of the paper; as reflected in the title, that "their ideals of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours".

• Fismam et al, 2008: Johnson (2016) states clearly on page 50: "In other words, there was quite a disconnect between what speed-daters were saying they preferred and what they actually preferred. Full text link here. This is a secondary source of the highest quality. You are somewhat mistaken when you say that they are refering to a different study; they are referring to Fisman's data when it was published in The Quarterly Journal of Economics in 2006. The version this article cites was published in The Review of Economic Studies. However both are based on the same data. The fact that the authors noted that nearly half of all hookups in their speed dating study were interracial is relevant and noted by many secondary sources.

• What you refer to as an "unsourced claim" is proof positive that you haven't read the material you're talking about. It was Michael Lewis's 2012 study, using British participants, which found that Asian women were rated as more attractive than White and Black women. Full link here. This study was the basis for Ian Stephen's 2018 study, which supported Lewis's results. It was also cited in Robin Zheng's article. Again, if you weren't able to easily find this paper, you're not actually reading the citations you're talking about.

• With regards to Zheng (2016), she writes: :It is this double feminization that increases the sexual capital of Asian women but not that of Asian men, a fact perfectly borne out in the oft-noted greater number of relationships between Asian women and White men compared to the number of Asian men in relationships with White women (e.g., Feliciano, Robnett, and Komaie 2009), in attractiveness ratings that rank Asians highest among women but lowest among men (Lewis 2012), and in the greater representation of Asian women compared to Asian men in popular media (Schug et al. 2015)

It sounds to me like you just don't want this in the article. This content has been revised by multiple editors, and it clearly merits inclusion since it is exactly what Zheng is saying.

• And finally, on Yang (2020): the content about sexual capital was a secondary claim based on Wilkins, Chan and Kaiser (2011): In the study by Wilkins, Chan and Kaiser (2011), participants rated the femininity/masculinity of various racial groups on a Likert scale. The researchers found that Asians were rated as the least masculine racial group and the most feminine racial group. In other words, looking Asian was related to looking more feminine, which although likely beneficial for Asian women, could potentially be detrimental to the viewer perception of masculinity of Asian males.

So this is not based on the Yang (2020) experiment, it's an observation based on prior research. Note that this is also echoed in the quote from Zheng (2016), which is based on Lewis's research. Please do not remove content from the article that is clearly supported by multiple secondary sources, per WP:SECONDARY. 2603:8080:1F00:518:FC41:3866:EC40:EA86 (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I actually have read the sources.

• Cunningham: "Eleven photographs were of Asian women from Thailand, Sri Lanka, Guam, Samoa, Hong Kong, Singapore, Surinam, Japan, Indonesia, Korea, and the Philippines; 5 photographs were ofHispanic women from Guatemala, Panama, Venezuela, Costa Rica, and Bolivia; 5 photographs were of Black women from Barbados, theBahamas, Paraguay, New Guinea, and Trinidad. Twenty-seven photographs portrayed White women, including 5 Europeans from Australia, France, Italy, Norway, and Yugoslavia, plus 22 Americans. Having a wide spectrum of faces, including some very attractive targets,prevented a restriction in range. The Asian, Hispanic, Black, and non-American White target women had been participants in an international beauty contest and, as such, had been selected by members of their own culture as being attractive. The issue for this study was whether they also would be seen as attractive by members of other cultures. The American targets were randomly selected college students." I rest my case!
• Fisman: For the Fisman study, the authors note that 47% was lower than the 53% one would expect if there was no race preference. In other words, participants still preferred their own race, if more slightly than one might predict. Fisman et al give two reasons why this is not surprising: (1) they were highly educated, and (2) they self-selected into a dating event where they might expect to encounter partners of different races. Noting the number of Asian–White pairings is not a finding of the study and is not relevant because it's simply a product of the makeup of the study participants, who were mostly White and Asian. Finally, the word "hookups" is completely objectionable.
• Johnson: I will acknowledge that Johnson referenced the same data — but where does he connect this to race preference? The full passage is, "In their studies, they found that income did not make either gender more desireable to the other (all of their studies were at heterosexual speed dating events). In addition, the gender difference for physical attraction seemed to vanish. In other words, there was quite a disconnect between what speed-daters were saying they preferred and what they actually preferred." This doesn't seem to comment on race preference at all.
• unsourced claim: I said it was an "unsourced claim" because it wasn't sourced and there was no citation. I didn't remove this content, I simply tagged it [citation needed].
• Zheng 2016: Please reread what I wrote. I left the citation in and rewrote the paragraph to be more faithful to what Zheng wrote.
• Yang 2020: In two places: "There was a marginal interaction between the two factors, F (1, 112) = 5.277, p = 0.023. Attractiveness ratings were higher for Asian females (M = 4.24; SD =1.88) relative to White females (M = 4.17; SD =1.76)," but then later, "Asian females were rated as the most attractive, and Asian males the least, though this difference was not statistically significant". So the finding is either marginal or not significant, and without that the subsequent points from the same study don't seem as relevant.

Furthermore:

• You have not responded to my points about Mason 2016 and Stephen et al 2018, so I will assume you agreed with my reasoning.
• You also reverted away my addition of Potarca 2015, which is a very large-scale study with 58,880 participants. A version of this study is reproduced here.

Please restore my edits and make more specific points about your objections. I have done my research and found many false and misleading statements, which you have now restored to the article. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

And just to add to the Cunningham study, the authors also state:

"Because the targets were chosen for their availability rather than randomly selected from their populations, and the absolute number of targets in each group was small, it would be incorrect to conclude that any ethnic group was more attractive than any other."

This line was in the same paragraph as the sentence you quote. It seems to me that you are the one who hasn't read these things! ShinyAlbatross (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You have really chosen the worse way to do this by listing so many studies. 

• With regards to Cunningham, et al., you haven't even made a case here. There's nothing in this quote that justifies not including this material and we don't make interpretive analysis of primary sources here.

Also, you quoted where the authors said that their data doesn't suggest that any one race is more attractive than the other. However, that is not relevant because the claim isn't made here. And, believe it or not, a rendition of that quote was actually removed from the Wikipedia article back in 2023 by an established editor's review. It's not relevant.

• About Fisman: you keep making interpretive claims about their data, but here's what they actually say on page 123: Nonetheless, 47% of all matches in our data are interracial. While this is significantly below the 53% that we would observe under random matching, it is still far above the 4% of interracial marriages observed in the Census data.18

This is absolutely a relevant finding. This is also demonstrated by secondary sources, which also emphasized the significance of the interracial match rate. Per Newton, 2014: They found that 47% of the matches were interracial, far higher than the interracial-marriage rate. Women were particularly likely to prefer men of their own race, while older people and people who were rated as more attractive were less likely to have same-race preferences.

Trying to remove this component from the article would be absurd when virtually every secondary source about Fisman's research notes this.

With regards to Mason (2016), they wrote: Like Tinder, users of Facebook’s “Are You Interested” “swipe” photos of prospective matches in a “Hot or Not Fashion.” Data from 2.4 million interactions on the Facebook dating application revealed that men self-identifying as black, white, Latino preferred Asian women. Self-identified Asian, white, Latina women preferred white men (Ritchie King 2013; Stout 2013).

King, 2013 is a Quartz article describing this data. Stout, 2013 is a time.com article that discusses it. If it's been published so many times by reputable sources, it is worthy of inclusion in the article. Again we don't make interpretive assumptions based on primary sources.

You are making lots of wild claims about dishonest or inaccurate summaries of content, yet nothing here appears to be dishonest. This includes the studies I haven't responded about. These sources have been pretty accurately summarized here, and this article hss been reviewed in its current state for a long time. Most of your claims are interpretive regarding primary sources; yet you're not citing any secondary sources that support your WP:OR analyses. Please note  that we don't argue points on Wikipedia, we simply cite references, with priority given to secondary sources. 68.203.15.20 (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

If your main complaint is that I have done too much research, I think there are worse problems that I could have!

• Cunningham: The current article states, "a diverse sample of men in the United States generally rated Asian American and Hispanic American women as more attractive than non-Hispanic White American and African-American women". The study's author states, "it would be incorrect to conclude that any ethnic group was more attractive than any other." Please tell me how this is not relevant.
• Fisman: There's two reasons why the 47% statistic should not be included here. First, it speaks to all interracial pairings, not specific to any one race or gender. This is true in your secondary source too. Second, it's from a biased sample which (1) differs greatly from the US population in terms of racial composition (p122, table 1); and as Fisman noted, (2) it's a highly educated sample, which has been shown to be more open to interracial dating (p123), and (3) self-selected into a speed dating event where they might expect to meet partners outside their own race (p123). This is not my interpretation, all of this is in the Fisman paper. There's a reason why the authors perform a statistical analysis of their results, rather than just stopping at the survey data. The raw survey data are not the findings, the analysis and discussion by the study authors are. The current article performs its own interpretation of the raw survey data, and in doing so disagrees with the study authors, which isn't appropriate.
• King 2013 aka Mason 2016: I didn't remove this article, I simply downgraded its status from a "study" (which it is not) to a "blog post" (which it is). I said it could be removed if it's made obsolete by better quality sources answering the same question.
• Zheng 2016: Zheng's conclusion is that "This cross-disciplinary body of work supports the claim that it would be utterly unrealistic to deny that lengthy exposure to a culture historically saturated with sexualized stereotypes of Asian women contributes to an individual’s sexually preferring them, even if that contribution is not obvious or accessible to introspection.", which is not represented in the current article. Her position is that culture and history influence attraction, however, the current article is unclear in this way and is ambiguous about causality which Zheng is not.

If you intend to refute my points, then refute them! I will not abstain from making edits on the mere innuendo of potential disagreements. Here are the studies which I have argued against and have received no response:

• Johnson 2016
• Yang 2020
• Stephen et al 2018

Also, again, I added Potarca 2015, which I believe should be included and is not in the current article. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Explanation of my edits on 2024-Sep-10

Since I am anticipating resistance from a particular Wikipedia editor, here is a summary of my current edits to this article. This is mostly a tl;dr of the previous discussion above, which you might read if you prefer tediously long discussions.

Deleted:

• Removed Cunningham (1995) because the study did not state what this article claimed it did.
• Removed original interpretation of Fisman (2008), while keeping the conclusion of the study.
• Removed Johnson (2016) because Johnson was not commenting on the subject it implied he was.

Changed:

• Changed the Mason (2016) reference to King (2013) and removed the claim that it was a "study".
• Changed "explains" to "could explain" when describing Lewis (2012) – this is an extraordinary claim, so confidently stating it as fact is far too strong.
• Better qualified Stephen (2018) to match the study author's statements.
• Rewrote the interpretation of Zheng (2016) to relate it to the rest of the section, and bring the language closer in line with her statement.

Added:

• Lewis K (2013) - online dating study in US
• Lin (2013) - online dating study in US
• Potarca (2015) - online dating study in Europe
• Burke (2013) - facial attractiveness study in Australia

While I didn't remove Yang (2020) yet, I do believe that it should be removed, because of the small effect size, the lack of complete data, and the fact that it's undergraduate research not published in an academic journal. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Critique of section: "Pornography"

As I did with the racial preferences section, I will critique the "Pornography" section of this page here, going in order of cited source.

• Rothman 2021: Rothman is referencing Shor and Golriz here. However, if you read Shor and Golriz, frankly, she got it wrong. Shor and Golriz's study was not a study designed to measure the representation of different races, instead, they employed "purposive sampling" with the explicit purpose of increasing ethnic representation in their sample. Quote:

We first sampled 50 videos from Pornhub’s general all-time most watched list. As most of the videos on this list included sexual interactions between a White (North American) man and a White (North American) woman, we sought to increase representation for other racial groups and the sexual interactions among them. We therefore purposively sampled additional all-time most watched videos from each of the following Pornhub categories: “Inter- racial” (25 videos), “Ebony” (52 videos), “Asian/Japanese” (35 videos), and “Latina” (19 videos), as well as “Gay” (25 vid- eos). In total, this preliminary sampling resulted in a pool of 206 coded videos.

• McGahan 2013: He does not say Asian is the most popular and sought-after genre of pornography. Instead, he says it is "one of the most well-represented genres", which is hardly a surprising or even interesting statement. There might be something interesting to quote from this text, but this isn't it.

• Hyphen Magazine 2005: No inaccuracy here, although this data is at least 19 years old and newer data should be preferred.

• Chou 2012: Chou is talking about sex tourism here, not pornography. I'm not sure "mate" is the correct word here since I don't think these men want a baby with a transsexual sex worker.

• Thierbach (2023): The search engine was Google Images, not Pornhub. In addition, as Thierbach notes, "Of course, it is not possible to know who used these search terms and for which reasons. Also, it seems that this comparison is based on a category mistake, since “Asian” refers to race and “blonde” to hair color." Lastly, this is a PhD thesis with 0 citations, so it is not considered a reliable source.

• Pornhub (2021): I have no idea where the claim that "Japanese" and "Asian" are the top searched terms came from. Globally, "Japanese" was #2 and "Asian" #6 (also, "Pinay" at #5). However, this is hardly surprising nor is it relevant to the "Asian fetish" when the 3rd biggest source of traffic was Japan. (Wow! Does Japan have an Asian fetish?). If you look at the 2022 review, in the US, "Latina" and "Ebony" are more popular search terms than "Asian". The 2023 review, unfortunately, has far less data. Moreover, since their analysis does not include the race of the viewer, so we don't know how many viewers were Asian themselves. In short: it tells us absolutely nothing about "Asian fetish".

• Lastly, this section does not include Shor and Golriz's finding that "aggression was present in three quarters of the videos containing Asian women, a much higher rate than for any other group of women in our study. Videos featuring Asian women were also most likely to include nonconsensual violence (more than one-third of these videos, compared to about 14% for White women)." And that although many of these videos were Japanese-produced videos, the level of aggression towards Asian women was very high regardless of whether it was a Japanese or Western production.

I will leave this critique up for a few days to allow discussion before I start fixing this section. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Critique of section: "Psychological effects of fetishization"

Since I have moved into material that is more descriptive than scientific, this critique will be a little looser than my previous ones. Same idea applies, though; I will leave this up for a few days to allow discussion, then I will begin fixing the issues I have identified.

Research based on responses from a few Asian-Americans indicates that the fetish creates a psychological burden on people of East and Southeast Asian descent

This passage is wordy and contains too many qualifiers. It's a widely-held view and could be rephrased as "Fetishization creates an undue psychological burden on Asian-American women."

Yet when 3 women in 1991 said they feel "pretty", this is recorded as:

According to research conducted at the University of California, the widespread preference for Asian women can boost the self esteem of Asian women by making them feel exceptionally 'pretty'"

Presenting these interviews in this tone is disingenuous. The author was simply telling a story.

Zheng has also noted that, in spite of her argument that the Asian fetish has harmful psychological consequences for Asian women, some Asian women may exploit the sexual capital afforded by the fetish, in order to attract wealthier white men, as in the case of Sarong party girls.

I'm not sure why this part says "in spite of her argument", as if the two parts are incompatible. It seems to imply that Zheng's thesis is incohesive, which is not WP:NPOV. It's fine to note that some women wield their sexual power with intent, but it could be said much better than this (and I don't think it fits under "psychological effects")

Men [...] may also affected by the stigma of their perceived fetish. [...] However, according to social research by Kumiko Nemoto, Asian American woman and White man couples reported little social or familial hostility, [...] They were sometimes even envied by other men, because of a shared cultural notion that Asian women are highly desirable.

This paragraph is confused. "Those poor men are suffering the burden of stigma, as well! But also, those harms don't exist, because everyone knows that Asian women are the most desirable women." It's pure nonsense.

It has been argued that the notion of an Asian fetish creates the unnecessary and erroneous perception of multiracial relationships as being characterized by "patriarchal, racist power structures" in relationships. However, research conducted by Kumiko Nemoto has found that second-generation Asian women in interracial relationships with white men often earn more money and have higher education than their partners. She also found that Asian women view these relationships as less patriarchal and more egalitarian.

Nemoto says:

It is true that the second-generation Asian American women I interviewed had better economic mobility than the foreign-born Asian American women, or even than the white men. But these women’s concerns about, and hopes of, being equal to whites seem to make them strive for white men’s recognition, and lead them to make compromises with white men’s power over them. As a result, these women themselves may employ and even perpetuate mainstream stereotypes of Asian Americans. Further study will be necessary to analyze the psychological dimensions of this gendered and racialized submission and compromise.

Again, misrepresenting the source and creating a straw man argument. Vivienne Chen's article is misinterpreted as well, quote:

By promoting the "creepy [white] man with Asian fetish" stereotype in public discourse, we Asian women are shooting ourselves in the foot. We subtly reinforce that the predominant narrative of interracial dating between non-Asian men and Asian women is one of patriarchal, racist power structures, when we know that is not always the case.

This is just saying that she wants to be able to date a white man without being coded as fetish. In other words, not all White-Asian pairings are fetish. (Shocker.) She doesn't argue against the existence of Asian fetish, just that she wants room to allow interracial relationships to take place without risk of judgment. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Critique of section: "History"

Again keeping with my previous critiques, I will leave this here for a few days to allow discussion before attempting to fix the issues I have identified.

In the 1800s, after the opening of Japan by Matthew Perry, word began to spread in the United States about the seductive femininity of Asian women.[18] Nationalistic fears that Asian women would seduce White men and destroy White families led to the passage Page Act of 1875, which prevented Chinese women from entering the United States.[18][19]

"Word began to spread" is a strange way of framing it. It assumes that Asian women are seductively feminine, instead of how the message of Asian prostitutes and geishas shaped a fantasy of Asian women as "seductive and sinister".

"Nationalistic fears that Asian women would seduce White men and destroy White families" again, doesn't mention prostitutes whereas the source text clearly does.

As early as the 1920s, it was noticed that White Dutch men preferred South East Asian women over White women.[7] When Indonesia was a colony of the Netherlands, a new beauty ideal was established, which ranked local women with light brown skin and lustrous black hair at the top.[7] The American consul general to Indonesia remarked that, to the average man, a mixed-race Indonesian woman was considered more attractive than a "pure" White woman, because White women's complexions were too pale.[7] The legacy of this colonial fetishization continues to be reflected in local literature, where women with European features (such as blond hair) are pitied, and it is written that "a golden-colored skin is the greatest gift that Allah can bestow upon a woman".[7]

While there is some truth here, this goes too far and states things too strongly. Saying "a new beauty ideal was established" makes it sound like a sexual hierarchy was virtually institutionalized. It fails to mention the economic motives from the source. The quote "a golden-colored skin is the greatest gift that Allah can bestow upon a woman" is from a Sundanese woman - it doesn't make sense to claim that an Asian woman upholding an Asian beauty standard is afflicted with colonial fetishism. Lastly, this is too long in proportion to its importance.

After World War II, the U.S. military occupied Japan, and U.S. soldiers began to interact with Japanese women.[21]

From Thomas (2021) (summaries my own, although it's a faithful approximation of the text):

• In the aftermath of WW2, the "Tokyo Rose" ideal emerged which further exoticised Asian women by allowing American GIs to "transfer their racial fantasies and hostilities"
• Military-endorsed prostitution and regulation of brothels contributed to the conception of Asian women as prostitutes.

From Nagatomo:

• Although brothels were established in an attempt to regulate sex work and reduce rapes, these were closed by the Americans due to large outbreaks of STIs.

There was a perception that Japanese women were superior to American women,[21] and there was a widespread sentiment "that a Japanese woman's heart was twice as big as those of her American sisters".[21]

You would think, reading this, that the dynamic between American GIs and Japanese women was respectful and one of mutual attraction. However, from Thomas's text:

• American soldiers in Japan, Korea, and Vietnam believed in their racial superiority and expected Asian women to be sexually available.

Nagatomo's text:

• American GIs were "swept off their feet by the deference and obedience of servile Japanese women"
• American GIs "praised the Japanese women for their kindly qualities, their submissiveness, and their eagerness to make the men comfortable"

The current article completely ignores mentions of stereotypical descriptions that put Asian women in subservient positions.

Moving on to Lim's writing on the Oriental Wave, it is indeed significant and interesting. However, the summary stops at 1959, notably before the Vietnam War. Lim states in her conclusion:

From 1959 forward, one might argue that iconic Asian American women set the stage for stereotypes that keep Asian American women in subordinate positions.

But this article decides to end it on:

[The Oriental Wave] also marked the beginning of the end of White women's dominance as the mainstream beauty ideal in America.

This is an incredible statement, and not present in the source. Here's what the source actually says:

Though Asian women triumphed over white ones in the Miss Universe pageant, the Academy Awards, and the cover of Life magazine, in differing ways each woman had to contend with body alterations to meet contem- porary standards of appearance. Through and through, their cultural iconography was predicated upon invoking European American standards of femininity.

Lastly, I believe this section needs to connect to other sections discussing war brides, sex tourism, and depictions in media as these topics are an important part of the history, too. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Critique of section: "International Marriage"

Starting with the stats rundown at the top:

• The Washington Post article is fine, if dated.
• The census data source does not include Asians. No idea where these numbers were pulled from. It seems the US Census doesn't track this. Remove.
• Likewise, for Chou (2012), she doesn't cite a source. I wouldn't question a published source if it were something the author had direct access to, but for this type of data the primary source needs to be stated. I also found a version of her text that includes the numbers, but the math doesn't math, and again, there is no primary source listed. Remove.
• Pew Research centre actually has some real numbers, but they aren't even mentioned in this article. I'm beginning to lose faith that anybody has actually read any of these sources.

This section needs to mention war brides by their name. War brides. Another example of this article viewing the subject through rose-tinted glasses.

Paragraphs about Debbie Lum and Bitna Kim belong in a different section, maybe a new section, about the perceptions of White (or Western) men with Asian fetish.

Thai section is a little fuzzy, but whatever. The Swedish men–Thai women thing is just a note from a bulletin from 2016 – no data, no trend. Questionable relevance. Remove.

Indian/Danish/Asian divorce trends (Mishra 2016): Editorial articles are not a great source for divorce statistics, especially when the primary source isn't listed. Also, what does this have to do with the topic? ShinyAlbatross (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits

Since there seems to only be three people here, I'll first point out that I am not the other editor you have been talking to, and I disagree with their ideas too. But you have had very strange removals of sources, User:ShinyAlbatross. Emily Rothman isn't "frankly getting it wrong", it's you who did. She doesn't reference Shor and Golriz in that point but Zhou and Paul, who are also referenced in Shor and Golriz too but you gladly choose to ignore and not add to the article. You also removed a source for simply being 19 years old, while keeping one that is 22 years old that what, fit your viewpoint instead? You grandly remove sources for not being enough thorough with their research and evidence, but freely add ones with slimmer studies, because they what, fit your viewpoint? And regarding Shot and Golriz, they fully admit they looked at Japanese pornography with full Japanese casts made for Japanese audience. How is this related to Asian fetish? Do Japanese men have an Asian fetish? Or, is this just to force your viewpoint? Of course, you forced it to the lede too. KSDerek (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we can have a reasoned discussion about this. Please tone down your accusations. What I write is reflective of what the sources say.

• On Rothman: She references both Shor & Golriz for the statistics, and Zhou & Paul for the violence study. She incorrectly assumes that Shor & Golriz is a representative sample of Pornhub, which it is not. You can read Shor & Golriz to verify this. You're right that their sample contained a significant number Japanese productions, which they also note in their study. They also state that these videos had similar amounts of violence compared to Western-produced videos with Asian women, so it doesn't change their finding. As well, Pornhub's audience is equally relevant as its content producers.
• I kept Zhou & Paul in this article and there's nothing wrong with their research.
• Which source did I remove for being 19 years old?

ShinyAlbatross (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, if you're going to criticize things I added, be more specific so that we can discuss them. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we can have a reasoned discussion after you add the sources back. I mean I am at a bit of a loss at what to do here. I want to show a good will, and I don't want to revert to the stable state, but you removed so many sources that it would look like I am messing the page up if I started adding them one by one back. What else can I do? I also have no idea what you're talking about with the Rothman statistics and violence study differentiation. On page 63 in the middle paragraph there is no Shor and Golriz, only Zhou and Paul. It literally begins with "Zhou and Paul randomly sampled..." PornHub isn't even mentioned in that paragraph. Shor and Golriz also do not mention that there was similar amounts, they specifically point out how much more there is in Japanese. I am bewildered at what you are writing, because it's the exact opposite of what's written. And you fully just removed the Hyphen magazine and other sources. And that was simply about trans women in pornography, so I don't understand why you removed it either. Are you fully comprehending everything? KSDerek (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Both Zhou & Paul and Shor & Golriz were studies on aggression, not overall demographic analyses.

From Rothman:

Exceptions include two content reviews from the 1990s,43 and one recent content analysis by Zhou and Paul (2016) on videos taken from the “Asian women” category of Xvideos.com.64 In addition, some basic informa- tion about the race of performers is available. In their analysis of 172 Pornhub videos uploaded between 2000 and 2016, Shor and Golriz found that ap- proximately 55% of pornography featured a white man, 30% featured a Black man, 10% featured an Asian man, and only 5% featured a Latino man. Asian women were comparatively overrepresented. Approximately 37% of pornog- raphy videos that they analyzed featured white women, 28% Black women, 16% Latina women, 1% Middle Eastern women, and 17% Asian women.51 For comparison purposes, according to the 2018 American Community Survey, the population of the United States is 72% white, 18% Hispanic or Latino, 13% Black or African American, and 5% Asian—so Black and Asian men and women appear to be overrepresented as pornography performers.

The demographic statistics are from Shor & Golriz.

Zhou and Paul randomly sampled 3,053 pornography videos from Xvideos.com and employed 27 undergraduate students in the coding of the videos in 2013. They found that Asian women were depicted differently than women of other races in pornography, were treated less aggressively, were less objectified, but also had lower agency in sexual activities.64

You're referring to this? I kept this in the article.

Also, Shor & Golriz:

Furthermore, this finding can- not be attributed to differing norms in various porn industries, as Asian female performers were likely to suffer from aggression in both Japanese- and Western-produced videos (in fact, even slightly more so in the latter).

Which is exactly what I said.

I can add Hyphen Magazine and trans pornography back in if you insist. I removed it because best-selling DVDs from 19 years ago seem a little distant (and not as good a source as I'd like), but I don't have a strong objection. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Shor and Golriz specifically write "videos featuring Asian men were significantly more likely to portray male aggression" and "all of these videos were products of the Japanese adult entertainment industry, which has unique characteristics that distinguish it from Western pornography. This industry includes notable and popular genres that often portray women as victims and men as molesters and abusers". I did not notice that that short sentence you picked up, and I have no idea what they base it upon because it disagrees with everything they have written besides that, but just before that sentence I noticed they write "This finding is especially counterintuitive with respect to Asian female performers, as they seem to stand in contrast with both previous literature about the most common media images of Asian women (Hagedron, 1997; Nakamatsu, 2005; Uchida 1998) and the recent study by Zhou and Paul (2016)". They even write that their findings disagree with general findings, yet you somehow managed to force it to be the general findings in the lede. There is obviously no consensus in literature yet you synthed there to be one in the lede. And I was talking about including the Rothman source, which is secondary source and thus preferred on Wikipedia over primary. KSDerek (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Everything they wrote is logically consistent. It depends if you are looking at Asian men or Asian women. This article's focus is Asian women.

Here's how I understand it:

1. There are many videos with white men, and a percentage (say 10% for simplicity's sake) contain Asian women.

2. Other than Japanese productions, there are not very many videos with Asian men. Say 1%, also for simplicity's sake.

3. There are Japanese productions that are 100% Asian men with Asian women. Say that there are the same number of these videos as there are Western productions featuring White men with Asian women.

4. Both the Japanese productions and the Western productions with Asian women have a high proportion of violent content, compared to videos without Asian women.

If these 4 things are all true, then we would truthfully say:

1. Videos featuring Asian men were significantly more likely to portray male aggression (most of those were Japanese productions) compared to White men.

2. Videos featuring Asian women were significantly more like likely to have violent content.

3. Excluding Japanese productions doesn't change things for point #2, because the Western videos with Asian women contain just as much violence (and apparently slightly more)

4. Videos with a White man and a non-Asian woman have comparatively lower rates of violence.

There's a number of possible explanations why their results differ from Zhou & Paul, not the least of which is just that it's a different website, but all we can do in this article is present both.

So we have Zhou & Paul, Shor & Golriz, and Gossett & Byrne. I believe Gossett & Byrne alone is enough to describe the results as troubling. If it was just Zhou and Shor together, you would probably say the data are inconclusive, but the different study focus in Gossett definitely points to something. Neither Zhou or Shor refutes the finding in Gossett.

I have no issue citing the Rothman text, as long as a note is included that the demographics provided are erroneous. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

To begin with Shor and Golriz specify looking at a category called "Asian/Japanese" and with just 35 (total 172) videos compared to Zhou and Paul who looked at 3053 videos. They also specifically have a table of the pairings so you don't need to guess. We can see that when there is an Asian woman, the odds of there being aggression is lower than when there is an Asian man, thus disproving your theory, because it is decreased by the content with non-Asian men having lower rate of it. And you keep pointing out the 19 year old age of the Hyphen source, but have no trouble touting the 22 year old Gossett, which again makes no differentiation between the sourcing of the content and doesn't mention the word "fetish" even once. None of this is related to Asian fetish. They all seemingly looked at Japanese pornography made for Japanese. No conclusions about Asian fetish can be made from that. KSDerek (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I think you're well into performing your own analysis with this comment. If you're going to disagree with the authors then you should have irrefutable evidence.

Table 4

Aggression (visual)

White man with Asian woman: 9.01

Asian man with Asian woman: 6.45

You keep talking like Shor and Zhou can't both be right. They can both be right. They were studies on two different websites using two different methods. Zhou's study has more precision because of the larger sample, sure, but that doesn't amplify the finding.

"Keep pointing out"? I said I have no objections to adding Hyphen back in.

I seriously think you should take a break and cool down. I'm making completely well-reasoned points and you're just coming back again and again with misgivings about the study. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Well cherrypicked column from the table. Here's the rest.

Title suggesting aggression

White man with Asian woman: 1.04

Asian man with Asian woman: 2.76

% of video showing aggression (OLS)

White man with Asian woman: 6.73

Asian man with Asian woman: 28.75

Aggression (nonconsensual)

White man with Asian woman: 1.53

Asian man with Asian woman: 2.53

You have not proven any of your claims. Please stop getting into personalities and talking about me, and rather talk of how your mass removal of sources makes sense. KSDerek (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't cherry-pick anything, the authors picked that for their discussion. They probably did that because both those numbers reached statistical significance, whereas with the numbers you listed, only the 28.75 was statistically significant.

In general, though, I don't have to prove anything. The study says this, and that's what the article goes with.

I have several thousand words above explaining my rationale for various changes. If you have an issue with any removals, tell me specifically which ones. However, I'm less and less willing to deal with you the more you try to argue against published research here. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You did cherrypick, and so did the authors. You talked of Rothman being unreliable, but Shor and Gorliz are with their tiny number of videos and cherrypicked focus points compared to Zhou and Paul. Even Shor and Gorliz said the literature generally disagrees with their findings. What do you say about that? And as already shown, your offered "rationale" is wholly wrong. You completely misread Rothman and apparently "accidentally" cut out sources from the article that you say you're going to return but don't. And now you're say you're not willing to deal with me anymore? Well what point is there for me to pinpoint this and that if you're not even responding then? KSDerek (talk) 05:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like you don't like this study. That's really too bad, but I think I'm done trying to help you understand it. Like I said, if you have further objections past Rothman and Hyphen, I'm all ears. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

For one, you removed the large starting paragraph with sources from the interracial marriages section. Your reasoning was that it wasn't related to the Asian fetish and it wasn't sourced well enough (I don't see anything wrong with the sources for the simple numbers in the prose). Now, I don't fully disagree with idea of it not being related, but how is the whole pornography section related then? Or the sex tourism section? Should we remove them as well? Like pointed out, the sources usually don't even mention "fetish". KSDerek (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Of marriage stats, only Washington Post was accurate, but it's from 1998 and frankly, it's not that interesting. Imbalanced marriage rates could equally be explained by White women discriminating against Asian men (which is pretty well-documented)

Marriage vs porn and sex tourism, hmm! I can definitely think of some reasons why those things are different. Which of those allow you to filter for "Asian" up front? ShinyAlbatross (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

How are those sources incorrect? There was one dead source you could have simply used web archive to get the archival link for. What discrimination of Asian men by White women? And what filtering? KSDerek (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

So many questions! I have explained my findings on the sources above. How about you make a positive case for why you think that interracial marriage is relevant? ShinyAlbatross (talk) 06:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Not really for these matters? And concerning that, like I wrote, I'm not arguing everything is relevant, I'm asking why according to you some aren't and some are even if they don't mention "fetish" once. KSDerek (talk) 06:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

1. If you're serious about discussing these issues, don't turn it into a revert war.

2. Okay, so if you agree it's not relevant, the source quality doesn't matter.

3. It seems like you're in need of a definition of what Asian fetish means, exactly. Zheng's 2016 paper is probably the best source you will get on this, and can be supplemented by Zheng's chapter in the 2022 Routledge text titled "Sex, Marriage, and Race". ShinyAlbatross (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not a revert war as three editors have reverted you now, that's just undoing vandalism. You offer nothing but point to Zheng? Whose text you have massively removed from the article? There's no logic in that argument. KSDerek (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• One editor other than yourself did a revert (the IP users are the same) of one section only. We discussed, I sorted out their misconceptions, and did a new edit incorporating new information.
• I kept all of Zheng. In fact, I kept most of the same sources.

ShinyAlbatross (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

These are the diffs: [1], [2]

One can understand why you'd ignore the IP because you have apparently now listed a sock puppet investigation against me, accusing me of being the IP editor? You completely missed out on there having been two IP editors of this article and only focused on the other, even combing through history only picking up their edits. It's bizarre that you'd even start an investigation listing against past IP edits.

And no, you didn't keep most of Zheng, and well keeping "most" of the old sources is surely highly gracious of you...

By this point I have to say you have clearly zero intent at coming to any sort of agreement or compromise, and are here only to harass and edit fight. KSDerek (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

So, it seems like he's not responding anymore and the investigation was simply closed. I'm asking others, like the IP editor who has frequented this article or others like User:A Rainbow Footing It, do you support or don't support reverting the mass removal of sources etc. by this editor? KSDerek (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I proposed a solution to this disagreement on your talk page, which you saw.

It's required to discuss here if you disagree with me. Asking User:A Rainbow Footing It to form a brigade against me here is not allowed. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

It's called a consensus... Before responding here I responded on the talk page, telling you to respond to my reply here. KSDerek (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Recruiting users who are likely to support your view is not allowed. You can only request input from impartial users.

I'll say once that I'm expecting this conversation to be WP:CIVIL.

What would you like me to respond to? The three reverts?

First one – I discussed the matter. Whoever those IP users were, they aren't coming back. I made a fresh edit after a week of no response.

Second one - I agree with that revert (and it was on one edit only). Makes sense to me.

Third one was you and you haven't discussed the specifics of what you find objectionable. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

If the users in question are the only ones participating then there isn't much choice. I don't know what has happened at this article before my time. And I understood the SPI clerk to simply mean the IPs are dynamic thus he doesn't expect the same IPs to continue editing, not that the editor will stop. And should I repeat myself? You didn't keep most of Zheng, and you say you kept "most" of the old sources which doesn't sound very constructive. You haven't responded to the numerous questions about how Shor and Golriz say the general literature has differed with their findings, which is contrary to the line you keep pushing to the lede. KSDerek (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

A Rainbow Footing It has never contributed to this page, apparently.

Before my edits, Zheng was cited heavily in the "Psychological effects" section, once in "Research on racial preferences", twice in the lede, using two sources. After my edits, Zheng is cited heavily in the "Psychological effects" section, once in "Research on racial preferences", once in the lede, using two sources. So overall, I removed one citation in the lede, because it was more citing Zheng citing Lewis (2012).

Shor & Golriz called their findings "counterintuitive", because it was in contrast to studies on (non-pornographic) media images, and found the opposite trend as Zhou & Paul. In terms of wide content analyses, there's only Zhou & Paul and Shor & Golriz. There's no reason both of these studies can't be true. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Zheng (2016) was cited 12 times before, now just 8. Not that the citation count is even the actual text I'm talking about. And they write "in contrast to previous literature". And they mention pornography too, not just non-pornographic. Why do you lie so much constantly? KSDerek (talk) 05:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can remove the personal attack or this conversation is not going to continue. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, what else would you call that? How can you have a conversation when the other person simply makes up things? You make more synth than even the IP editor from before. And it's you who needlessly just started an SPI against me and didn't even apologise for it. KSDerek (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand your offence at the SPI, so I'm sorry that I falsely accused you. Try to see it from my perspective when I saw how new your account is and the circumstances here.

Can we continue with the discussion? ShinyAlbatross (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

And to fit their whims they just stop responding, having been proven wrong but wikilawyering on some red herring slight. I added many of their additions back in. I didn't mass revert. What they just do is mass remove sources, mass revert everything and then wikilawyer about the other side edit warring. KSDerek (talk) 06:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, I noticed you had added some other sources. Your "Racial Violence against Asian Americans" doesn't mention fetish even once. After that for the violence statement in the lede you have added a bunch of non-scientific pop culture articles like from Teen Vogue. KSDerek (talk) 06:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I would like this discussion to be productive. I really would.

Your comments here, here, and especially here are rude and unhelpful. If a productive discussion is to take place, it needs to be respectful. I'm more than open to discussions about improving the article but incivility toward me is is really preventing that. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean, you just posted "Can we continue with the discussion?" after all the replies (that much is obvious because it would block you from posting if there is an edit conflict). Now that I brought up very simple points, you simply suddenly decide to not to respond. Again, for the how manieth time. KSDerek (talk) 04:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@KSDerek: sorry for taking so long to respond. I do support the mass reversion of the recent changes hy ShinyAlbatross, except where consensus was already achieved where they were helpful. The biggest problem here is their own enormous deletion of sourced content (which they have also done elsewhere...), which again does not appear to be based on any real reasoning. The isssue is not the addition of new content to the article, but their vast deletion of content. Meaning their additions are perfectly fine to add where they are reliably sourced and accurate. A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@A Rainbow Footing It I suggest you stay out of this discussion, given previous history, as you have ostensibly never edited this page before and entering at this point could be seen as WP:CANVASS. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Changes on Sep 30 - notes

Interview with porn performers

Received a "failed verification" note on the comment on anti-Asian violence. See these quotes from the article:

The industry has not exactly been sensitive or responsive to these discussions. Shortly after the Atlanta shootings...

Kush was also taken aback when a distribution company tagged her in a tweet promoting a scene titled “Asian Massage Invasion” shortly after the attacks. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

You should add your signatures to each section if you want responses in each. So for this, there is nothing about anti-Asian violence, only a mention about the same incident you base everything on, and even that is just barely tied to one person through a tweet, so nothing like in the prose where you make it seem like they all talk about it in detail. It's very synth-like prose to make them say what you want them to say. KSDerek (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

There's "nothing about anti-Asian violence" in this source? Huh?? "just barely tied to one person through a tweet"?

All I can say is, you should read the article again if you truly believe this. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

That is a non-answer. You yourself pointed out the quotes you think mention it, but obviously don't? KSDerek (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what to tell you – I don't even know what you're claiming here. The quotes (and the article) clearly support the statement. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

They don't even mention violence. The first one has the author speaking, and none of the people you are claiming as the voices of it. Do you not see how there is no logical connection here? The second one has ONE of the people mention a tag of a tweet of scene with a title about Asian massages some time after a shooting at an Asian massage establishment. That is about sensitivity of a scene to a recent tragedy at a similar establishment, what connection is there to your claim? All you have is a vague original research interpretation and even then it's just one person and their reaction to a Twitter tag, not even them saying anything. KSDerek (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure you've even read the article now – if the question is "Do the interviewees criticize the industry in its response to anti-Asian violence?" the answer is obviously "yes". ShinyAlbatross (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

But there was no such question? How is that not original research, trying to read between the lines? Remember what the other IP editor did before? They added their own interpretations of what apparently the sources intended. Both you and I removed those "interpretations" as they weren't per source. KSDerek (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Shor & Golriz, Zhou & Paul

There is nothing wrong with either of these studies and both should be included. One editor takes issue with Shor & Golriz, saying that the sample size was much smaller. However, the field of statistics tells us when a finding is significant, and (indirectly) whether our sample was too small to determine anything. Different thresholds exist, but p < 0.05 is generally the threshold of significance in most fields. Shor & Golriz report on their findings which reach that level of significance.

Differences in their findings are far more likely to be the result of different methodologies — and it's easy to spot the ways in which they are different. For example:

• They were conducted on different websites
• Shor & Golriz included "forceful penetration" as a criterion, and Zhou & Paul did not, perhaps because of coding challenges
• Shor & Golriz used a convenience sampling method focusing on popular videos, Zhou & Paul went to great lengths to try to sample random videos. Random videos are ideal for studying what is posted on the website, but popular videos are better for studying what people are actually watching on the website. Neither is superior - it depends on the question you are trying to answer.

I wouldn't go so far as to discuss these points in the article, because I think that's not Wikipedia's job. But I'm offering a plausible explanation for why the results were in opposite directions and that they do not directly contradict each other.

By placing undue emphasis on the sample size, I think this could be seen as non-neutral presentation of the research. The article should just present both neutrally.

Besides that, saying Asian women are more/less likely to be subjects to violence compared to White women does not make violence unconcerning. All violence is concerning, period, and researchers try to understand the reasons for violence. Those reasons might plausibly be rooted in racial stereotypes. Gender+racial motivations for violence are worth discussion (especially when high-quality sources discuss it) regardless of whether that violence is more or less than a different group. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing about fetish in these sources as mentioned, which is what has been mentioned numerous times. And the other problems brought up weren't touched upon at all, that they include Japanese pornography ie certainly not fetish pornography and that secondary sources should be preferred. You had criticized and removed a different source apparently just for being 19 years old but have no issue with the older 2002 source based on just 56 images found on the internet? The sources were presented with just the facts but you keep wanting to add your prose. So, should the prose be removed? KSDerek (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not necessary that every source directly say the word "fetish" if it's a related issue and relevance to the topic has been established elsewhere.

We've been on this topic before. Shor & Golriz: "Furthermore, this finding cannot be attributed to differing norms in various porn industries, as Asian female performers were likely to suffer from aggression in both Japanese- and Western-produced videos (in fact, even slightly more so in the latter)."

Rothman: again, we've been here before, and I'm not repeating all of what was said. Rothman is a reliable source except for the description of Shor & Golriz. Rothman also didn't say what you wrote she did.

Source removed for being 19 years old: I said you could add it back (although I think the information added was trivial). Again, we've been here before.

Gossett and Byrne is an older study, but is still relevant and talked about in much newer review articles like Forbes, Yang & Lim. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

It's necessary that they touch upon the topic... Pretty pointless otherwise. And the only way relevance has been established is because you push the pornography topic from other sources now. And as mentioned, Shor and Golriz specified how the general literature had disagreed with their findings, and in that line they also cherry-picked the only category of aggression out of many where it was that way, and then you cherry-pick that line out of all, like a long line of cherry-picking to get a result, very scientific. I pointed out how Rothman doesn't mention Shor and Golriz for the part she is quoted, unlike what you stated. You oppose Rothman's use for some matter Rothman isn't even used for? So, you keep removing Rothman for not being up to your standards as a source, but not Shor and Golriz, who are very cherry-picking in their interpretations and methods? And you have never added the 19 year old back even though you have talked about it many times. Gossett and Byrne is another bizarre source. They looked at 56 images in 2002. That is a bizarre sampling even in 2002. Is this source up to your standards even though it clearly seems very shoddy? KSDerek (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Shor and Golriz say their study "seem to stand in contrast" with previous studies, and then provided some theories as to why
• It's not for you to say whether a study is good or bad. Researchers obtain years of education and go through peer review to try to ensure their study is good. For Wikipedia's purposes, it only has to come from a reliable source.
• Rothman misinterpreted Shor & Golriz as a content demographics study, which it is not
• "Rothman deems that the findings of the depictions of Asian women in pornography aren't consistent" is not supported by what Rothman writes
• Other sections of Rothman's text are fine

We've had this discussion before. Please go back and re-read previous threads if you have more questions. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

And you have never added the 19 year old back even though you have talked about it many times.

Please, go ahead. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

For the first point, exactly, and pushing only one side to the lede is unbalanced. And like you write, it's not for you to decide whether a study is bad, so why do you keep removing Rothman? Who decided that? And you claim you found some unrelated mistake in Rothman to decide it's bad? That portion isn't even what it's used for? Rothman is most of all secondary source, which is preferred. And Rothman quotes Zhou and Paul about the statement on Asian pornography, and writes that race based pornography content analyses are rare and that "so few content analyses have been conducted to answer questions about how depictions of people by race may be evolving over time, and about racism and pornography". It's not focusing on just Asian in that part, so it could be changed to "findings of the depictions of Asian women and race in pornography aren't consistent or comprehensive" or something to that effect. So, which sections by Rothman are fine? We have had this discussion but you haven't been willing to talk much before. And how would you be willing to accept old sources back? I also noticed that in the research section the 1995 study was removed, the 2020 study was removed and key information about the 2013 Lin study was removed. Your explanations for the removals are very sparse, like apparently your reason for removing the 1995 source is again because you simply deem it not reliable enough on your own accord. For the how manieth source. The type of reasoning you use for removing the 1995 reference would very well apply to removing Gossett and Byrne too, and it's at the heart of your claims. KSDerek (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• In Rothman's case, it's simply a mistake, the way a typo is a mistake. It's not that I'm saying the evidence is insufficient or that Rothman is stretching the logic. In those cases, it's inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to judge. WP:WSAW
• As I said above: "saying Asian women are more/less likely to be subjects to violence compared to White women does not make violence unconcerning. All violence is concerning, period, and researchers try to understand the reasons for violence. Those reasons might plausibly be rooted in racial stereotypes. Gender+racial motivations for violence are worth discussion (especially when high-quality sources discuss it) regardless of whether that violence is more or less than a different group"
• I'm not sure what those other studies have to do with this. They don't; and my reasoning was solid for any changes I made and I wrote down everything. And that's not the reason I removed Cunningham (1995).

ShinyAlbatross (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what it is in Rothman's case, because that portion you focus on isn't even used in the article. If you say it's wrong about an unused matter, why does that matter? Considering Woan wasn't reliable on something that it is used for, do I look for the other times it's unreliable too, on matters not related to our topic? And in your second point you write "regardless of whether" "more or less", yet you only seem to push one view in the lede, why is that? You seem to acknowledge there being a discussion, a disagreement, two views, yet why does only one view get allowed in the lede? And I pointed out the other studies you cut, because you cut them for reasons one could also apply to Gossett and Byrne and its strange evidence of 56 images, which was odd a long time ago too, considering that wasn't there text and a reference about violence in pornography decreasing over time at the page for Pornography? If we apply that logic, is this study simply out of date? Also, when I was just reading on some guidelines, I was reminded that Woan specifies their article being from a standpoint of critical race theory and feminist jurisprudence. The Wikipedia lede for that theory holds that "Academic critics of CRT argue it is based on storytelling instead of evidence and reason, rejects truth and merit, and undervalues liberalism." I'm not here to argue about that, but clearly it is a controversial theory, and I think we can both agree on categorizing the article's standpoint as a radical viewpoint, can we not? KSDerek (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Miller & McBain, Rothman

Rothman doesn't say the thing it says she did. I think Rothman should be an excellent source, except for the obvious way Shor & Golriz is misinterpreted (see my previous comments on Rothman). Rothman's text should not be used to describe Shor & Golriz.

Miller & McBain is fine, but doesn't add any new information. The original wording of "Studies of more general pornography have shown mixed results" is fine, but I'll keep Miller & McBain since it's a secondary source. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea why you hate including Rothman so much and keep removing it. Earlier, I pointed out how you misread Rothman completely. It's completely Wikipedia recommended style of secondary source commentary on those studies and in a respectable textbook on the topic. KSDerek (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

You said I misread Rothman completely, but I don't know your reason, and I don't believe I did. Again, we had this conversation already. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Like pointed out above, you claim Rothman was used for something it wasn't. KSDerek (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

General wordsmithing

I don't see any good reasons to change these. For example, changing "Asian women report a number of harms" to "There may be a number of harms" with the reason given that Asian fetish is not specific to Asian women. Sure, but the sources talk about Asian women specifically, which is true of 99% of this article. Increasingly I think this article should just cover heterosexual, male -> female Asian fetish in the United States since that's what the vast majority of writing is about, reserving a section for alternative framings.ShinyAlbatross (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Like I mentioned, you yourself had edited the article to be about Asian men facing it too, but now you only want to focus on Asian women when it comes to the negatives? And even the original wording would ask for a "who?" template because who is the text talking about? That language is not at all Wikipedia style. KSDerek (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

In principle, "Asian fetish" is agnostic to sexual orientation and gender. But as a social phenomenon which is defined and discussed in popular and academic sources, the vast majority focus exclusively on heterosexual American men and Asian women.

When the source is doing this, the article should do this. Plain and simple. To frame it from the opposite direction, turning it into the generalized statement "There may be a number of harms" is not properly supported because there is no source saying this for gay/straight Asian men or gay Asian women. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

You'd have to add a source for that claim. Because for now we have a source talking about it applying to men too and you even added text to that effect. If there is a source that only looks at women's issues, without it specifying that the fetish only concerns women, well, you can't claim it does. What alternative do you offer to that line then? KSDerek (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Turning it into the generalized statement "There may be a number of harms" is not properly supported because there is no source saying this for gay/straight Asian men or gay Asian women ShinyAlbatross (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

So, what is supported by sources then? Definitely not your "Asian women report". Again, that would require "who?" template. Who are you talking about? In the body you have "Targets of Asian fetish report". Why is it suddenly Asian women in the lede? Why did you change it for the lede? So, I assume you will be happy if I change it to 100% your text with "Targets of Asian fetish report"? Or not? You don't want your own text from the body to be used in the lede to point at that text in the body? KSDerek (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources relating to connection to violence

I've added 3 secondary, academic sources to support these claims: Forbes, Zheng, and Woan. One should really be enough. If there is an opposing voice here, find it in a reliable source and add it to the article. But so far, I haven't found any source that says there is no link between Asian fetish and anti-Asian violence.ShinyAlbatross (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Not that you added the other two, but those mentions are notably based on the 2002 study of the 56 pornography images which they reference. That is used by all except Zheng who then only very briefly mentions the matter with Woan as a source, so in the end it's based on it too. These sources predate the other studies. And the focus is not on the fetish but pornography. As we see in the earlier mentioned secondary sources, like Rothman which you keep removing for whatever reason, they say it's mixed whether that pornography is linked to violence, so yes, it's contrary, so it's ridiculous to claim in the lede based on the few mentions and ignore other sources. You already had it in the body, but try to force it in the lede even though it's a controversial view. And you added the Harvard Law back with a quote about the WW2 internments and 1992 Los Angeles riots? Are you mistaking this article for just general racism article? It clearly doesn't belong. KSDerek (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Being based on one incident isn't a strike against notability — single incidents can be extremely important historical events.

But you're also wrong about that. Forbes et al cite 3 studies in addition to the Atlanta spa shooting. Zheng cites 5 more (including Woan). Woan (2008) mentions many specific incidents:

• An infamous issue of Penthouse featuring Asian women being bound and tortured, some ambiguously shown as potentially even dead, which inspired a nation-wide anti-pornography protest.
• Two months after this issue, the incident of an eight-year-old Chinese girl being raped and lynched
• The 2005 case of Princeton University student Michael Lohman going around cutting Asian women's hair off and pouring his urine and semen into their drinks over 50 times,
• The 2001 case of David Dailey and Eddie Ball abducting and raping two Japanese schoolgirls
• The 2002 case of Richard Borelli Anderson murdering Lili Wang at North Carolina State University

... and the heading of this section in Woan's text is "Case of the Asian Fetish Syndrome".

I do think that overall, content analyses of pornography are rather thin and aging, and pornography has changed so much in the last 20 years. But there is no contrary or superceding evidence against Gossett & Byrne, and it gets a mention in Forbes et al., a high-quality secondary source published just last year. I'm completely open to an opposing viewpoint here, it only needs to be found in a reliable source.

Anyway, you said I ignored other sources. Which sources would those be? ShinyAlbatross (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

It is when it's not talked about afterwards. Also, your interpretation of sources is very liberal again. The two main issues you bring up for Woan are both in one short sentence in a footnote, attributing it to "Helen Zia". But Woan is seemingly misreading the author, it's not Helen Zia but Sumi K. Cho. Helen Zia is the author for another work in the anthology. So, like earlier with Rothman, should this be immediately disqualified for Woan not even being able to get such simple things correct? Or does the cherry-picking of sources happen again? It's also hard to understand what evidence Woan has of these incidents being related to any fetish when there is seemingly none. I'd also be interested in where are these other sources you mention for Forbes, because Forbes talks of many things in that paragraph like sex trafficking, so which sources are used for the violence claim? And Gossett and Byrne were contrary to Zhou and Paul. And like mentioned, Gossett and Byrne is a very shoddy study based on 56 images in 2002 which was odd even in 2002. The most comprehensive study done on the matter by far is Zhou and Paul. The other sources are Rothman, which you keep removing, and Miller and McBain. KSDerek (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure where you're getting that from, this description clearly lists Zia as the author of the chapter.

If you want a contrasting viewpoint, please find it in a reliable source. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

You are right about Zia being the author, as the listing I had had Zia on the wrong line, but now when I read the source, what Woan attributes to Zia about "sexual stereotyped pornography and actual violence against Asian women" isn't there at all. Zia almost doesn't even mention pornography after the lead paragraph, where it's one of the things tied to the intersection of what makes up the "hate rape" they describe. Absolutely nothing about sexual stereotypes in pornography? Closest to that is in a sentence about a black woman: "Investigators could have raised issues of those white men's attitudes towards the victim as a black woman, found out whether hate speech of race-specific pornography was present, investigated the overall racial climate on campus, and brought all of the silenced aspects of the incident to the public eye." That was the closest it got, which isn't anywhere close. And they write that they looked into "hate rape" killings of Asian Americans, but could only find male victims. They spent effort to find a case like that young girl, and even then the connection is very slim, no description of the attacker and just loose timing of a murder in all of the United States. But the overall statement was that it's mostly male victims. We talked about this earlier too, you wanted sources that claim this about men being the target, and now you have it already. And like I wrote, the most comprehensive study done on the matter by far is Zhou and Paul, which is contrary to the pornography claims which are the basis in your sources using Gossett and Byrne's 56 images from 2002 as their evidence. KSDerek (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

It will take a bit of time for me to source the Zia text. I doubt what you're saying is the full picture.

Nonetheless, I said at the top that one high-quality secondary source is plenty for this. You're now digging into the sources of sources, which I can't see being fruitful unless each and every one of them somehow contains a serious obvious error. Dozens of authors and journals simply don't make "mistakes" like these.

Gossett & Byrne and Zhou & Paul are two completely different studies. Zhou & Paul definitely doesn't cancel out Gossett & Byrne, or Shor & Golriz for that matter. High quality secondary sources agree. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright, found it.

Contains 5 examples of violence against Asian women. Zia's point was that these incidents are rarely investigated as hate crimes, even when there is ample reason for suspicion.

If you're looking for a connection between pornography and violence, there's another essay in the same anthology, page 518. "Using Pornography".

Or, I mean, just look at Gossett & Byrne, which is what Woan does. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

But you have done exactly what I did. Before, you looked at sources of sources and removed references based on that. You claimed that a source in a source was just a blog post. Well, I can't find that Mason 2016 anymore. Again, you are allowed to do all kinds of things, yet deny them from me. And I also noticed that the study by Gossett and Byrne isn't even based on 56 images from 2002, but from 1999, so by this point 26 years old. They also qualified that any site which had text "rape" or "forced" to be of rape porn, so anything on one of the sites they listed (none of which work anymore): "rape.bizarre.nu.html" seemingly qualified as rape porn according to them. Whereas Zhou and Paul looked at a large number of recent videos on a major website, and actually qualified the behavior seen in the videos according to different metrics. And high quality secondary sources like Miller and McBain or Rothman, which disagree with the one-sided interpretation? And you found Zia, and wrote nothing about pornography in it, which is what it is used for in Woan, so you yourself proved Woan is reading sources in a very strange fashion. And Gossett and Byrne, again, hardly function to support their own findings with the odd small bit of evidence they quickly looked up, let alone the freeform interpretations based on it. KSDerek (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Tourism section

Regarding the "not relevant" tagging of this section, I partially agree that some claims in this section are somewhat tangential and not directly connected to the article topic. Western men paying for sexual services in Asia alone isn't enough to claim "fetish", since there are a number of different possible motivations, and it's very difficult to identify/quantify each one.

However, Abramson & Pinkerton do make direct mention of fetish:

Tourism to Asia is organized within the political economy of global relations and derives its market value from the general commodification of the “Orient” as well as the commodification of leisure and pleasure. Current constructions of “Asia” are successors to the Orient of nineteenth-century imperialism, travelers’ tales, early anthropology, and their associated projects, all resulting in the collapse of the exotic and erotic to create a fetishized, imagined Other with little attention to empirical veracity (Said, 1978; Kabbani, 1986; Marcus, 1992).

[Edward] Said, and others following his lead, have argued that current constructions of “Asia” are successors to the fetishized, largely mythic, geographically proximate, and sometimes faithless “Orient” of the nineteenth century (Said, 1978; Kabbani, 1986; Cocks, 1989; Marcus, 1992; Suleri, 1992), such that the popular representations of Asia in general, and countries such as Thailand in particular, are a sentimental mix of the erotic and exotic.

This section could be pared down and linked to Sex tourism as a "see also". ShinyAlbatross (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

If there is one source that mentions "fetishized" in passing in two parts, and seemingly just talking of the image of the countries, it's not much to go on? KSDerek (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm all for improvement of this section. I don't think it should be eliminated, since sex tourism is mentioned in numerous sources as well (e.g. Woan, since I was just looking at it). I'm also cognizant this article is already too long and probably a paragraph or two is enough. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Woan has been shown to be fairly unreliable in their interpretations, interpreting everything to be fetish without any evidence, and like shown they also get simple things you quote them for wrong. KSDerek (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

See above – Woan is fine. There's opinion involved, but it's well-researched and published. If you want to present a different opinion, find it in a reliable source. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

We established above that Woan is fairly liberally quoting the sources, coming up with things that weren't really said in them. And like I wrote, the most comprehensive study done on the matter by far is Zhou and Paul, which is contrary to the pornography claims which are the basis in your sources using Gossett and Byrne's 56 images from 2002 as their evidence. And we have secondary sources Miller and McBain and Rothman. Like let's get to the root of your sources. All the evidence all your sources base their claims on are the Gossett and Byrnett 2002 study on 56 images, which was strange even in 2002. Then you have Shor and Golriz, which quoting you "Shor and Golriz say their study "seem to stand in contrast" with previous studies, and then provided some theories as to why" and talk about how Japanese pornography that their study heavily bases itself on is more aggressive, but in one sentence they cherry-picked one category of aggression where it was the opposite, and you also cherry-picked that sentence out of all the text. Are these two the basis of your actual evidence besides just claims? Considering we also have evidence in contrast like Zhou and Paul, and Miller and McBain finding the general results inconclusive. There is no way you can just push one side of the interpretation in the lede. KSDerek (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, you had accused of canvassing before, but I just happened to come by canvassing to this article on a non-Wikipedia website. The person seemed interested in similar things to you, but in good faith I assume it's not you? KSDerek (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

No idea what you're referring to. Post the link - I have nothing to hide. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

If it's not you, then it's probably not ok to share. Also, I added a note that you also removed in your rush to just revert. You didn't respond to it at all either. KSDerek (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

If you want me to respond to something, post it here on the talk page. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You are allowed to leave the notes in the source. But I am not, according to you. You will simply revert me adding notes, and leave your own in. This is so unconstructive. KSDerek (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Leave all the comments you want – but if you want me to see and reply to them, put them here. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

So, I assume I am allowed to use notes now? Also, concerning the third dispute noticeboard listing you have made of me now, with the following text: "He has insulted me, made frivolous arguments, refused to get the point, is pushing a POV, and at this point is just wasting as much of my time as possible." If you state that I insulted you by making a negative statement about the way you argue some weeks ago, what would you call all of that then? Do you not see it's not only repeats that kind of behavior multiple times, but that noticeboard posts are also supposed to be neutral? Although I think I pointed that second part out already. KSDerek (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)