I wouldn’t expect anyone who voluntarily names themselves ‘Bob Has Bitch-Tits’ to pick up on the sexist undertones of the piece…

I see the significance of using the word ‘maybe’ as an opening to the possibility of other options – and certainly the author hasn’t suggested that her argument is necessarily true, or even the only one that exists. That said, though, the paragraph isn’t there by accident – and if it’s there for any ironic purpose I fail to see it.

Instead, I think the author is making a point of expressing an opinion, particularly in that excerpt you’ve quoted: that she believes that the phenomenon we’re speaking of here is not “yellow fever” but in fact “beige craze”. What is the function of inverting the phenomenon in this way? It says to me that despite the fact that BOTH a white man AND an asian woman might express a preference for the other, we can nonetheless place responsibility for this situation disproportionately on the asian woman. The reason she alludes to is because there is some evidence that MIGHT suggest that Asian women are ‘easier’ for white men than those women from other ethnic backgrounds.

I apologise for not making the point clearly enough in my earlier post – looking back, it makes very little sense. But perhaps I should clarify that I did not mean that the author demonised women for being sexual. Not at all. What I meant is that by placing responsibility for this ‘phenomenon’ squarely on Asian women, the author effectively perpetuated the harmful assumption that it is the Asian woman’s fault that she is being sexualized by some white men (implicit in her assertion that it is not ‘yellow fever’ but ‘beige craze’) – rather than being a much more nuanced interplay of forces.

My major problem with this is that there is such little balance in the way the author presents her case. Firstly, she presents TWO historical reasons as to why a white man might find an Asian woman sexually attractive: (1) that it might be a remnant of the post-war sex trade, and (2) that it is because asian women are sexually more accessible for them.

However she fails to afford the same space to reason why an Asian woman might be more open to advances from white men than those of other ethnic backgrounds. I expressed this point really clumsily in my earlier post.

I think there should have been equal space reserved for the fact that settlement during wartime often has similar effects PSYCHOLOGICALLY on the local population as forms of colonisation and imperialism. That is, that settlement can function not only to colonise the body, but also colonise the mind (see Fanon’s 1978 ‘Black Skin White Masks’, Ghosh’s ‘Colonisation and Modernity’), hence why we might see some Asian women with a preference for white men.

The author says it herself: “while its nice for there to be positive stereotypes about a race… they also turn people into objects”. Yes, a man with ‘asian fever’ is a man who stereotypes asian women – this is objectifying. But developing the concept of ‘beige craze’ is itself a harmful stereotype that constructs a picture of ‘easy’ Asian women. I’d like to think a linguistics major would pick up on the fact that this new stereotype has potential to be more objectifying than the one which preceded it.

A better option would be the absence of stereotyping altogether.

Your post is a bit meandering in its logic, and that’s cool, but I had a hard time following what it is exactly that you’re on about. Even so, its pretty clear your boilerplate concerns about objectification, patriarchy, gender sensitivity ect. are out of place here IMO. This column is pretty on the level. For instance, there’s no language demonizing women for being sexual. If you can point it out, I’ll respond to your point. But it’s not there. Look again.

Also, I don’t think anyone is suggesting the speed dating study here is the end-all-be-all on this topic. This “maybe” is pretty important:

“So maybe it’s not that white men love Asian women so much, it’s more that Asian women are the only minorities accepting their advances. But if that’s the case, it shouldn’t be called yellow fever: It should be called something like beige craze or pale eroticism.”

I find your article insidiously sexist and racist on a number of grounds on which I will comment:

For a piece ostensibly dedicated to deconstructing racist stereotypes you’ve relied on two extremely harmful ones to prove your point that “in the bedroom, we’re all alike”.

The very basis of your argument is that the root cause of this so-called ‘yellow-fever’ is fundamentally that “Asian women are the only minorities accepting [white mens’] advances”. Whilst this might have been evident in the particular study from which you cite (I say this because one study is hardly enough evidence to demonstrate causality), you neglect to mention that those results might have been influenced by a range of socio-historical circumstances that contribute to why these particular women were more open to dating white men than women from other backgrounds (after all, processes of colonisation/conquest did not occur, nor affect everyone in the same manner). I find it puzzling that your entire article is dedicated to historicising ‘yellow-fever’ but yet fails to do the same for the women you subject/object in your piece! By saying that the only reason why some men might prefer Asian women over other ethnic backgrounds is because they are ‘easier’ (semantic analysis of your article brings me to this endpoint) is not only racist, but much worse, also demonises these women for having done nothing harmful to anyone else! As a woman myself, I’m tired of women being blamed for being ‘sexualised’ a particular way – in my view, to put the blame almost entirely on women is just as patriarchal as doing the sexualising itself!

Whilst I agree with you, wholeheartedly, that nobody should base their conceptions of other people on biological facticity – I see your article as perpetuating the very same harmful stereotypes – denouncing biological racism in favour of cultural racism is no less discriminatory.

as somebody in the social sciences, perhaps the writer should also look at other studies that just doesn’t support her ditzy liberal views and actually look at the facts.

to start with, maybe she should look into studies also showing that asian males have to earn an extra $247,000 a year in order to be considered on par with white males. and in that same study, it showed that asian females actually had white males on average $47,000 LESS to be considered equal dating partners as asian males.

there is such a thing as “liberal racism” and it starts with denying that prejudice continues to exist today and tries to see everybody thru colorblind lenses that just ignores the real racism.

Don’t they also say that Jewish male penises are really small, and Jewish female’s you-know-what are real small to accomodate Jewish men?

This is a fascinating piece. What exactually is an East Asian?

Please write a column about the merits of circumcised v. uncircumcised penises.

I think this was your best written column to date. Great work!

Good article.