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)