In a country clearly divided by lots of racism - not all of it white - it just seems 'natural' to ascribe racially, at least partially, to the Atlanta narrative. I haven't followed the story since what, last year, I think, when it happened? I remember opening an article I wrote on Medium with the story, the article being how we have to s…
In a country clearly divided by lots of racism - not all of it white - it just seems 'natural' to ascribe racially, at least partially, to the Atlanta narrative. I haven't followed the story since what, last year, I think, when it happened? I remember opening an article I wrote on Medium with the story, the article being how we have to start calling out misogyny in religious and ethnic cultures and name names. (Ironically, Medium published that fine but I'd have never gotten it passed by the approval team at Vocal.media which once rejected a story for 'hate speech' because I'd made a snarky reference to Catholic priest pedophilia. Removing the specificity got it passed.) Problem is, as you point out, at least at that time there wasn't much to point to racism rather than religious nuttiness, esp how typical it is for conservative men to blame women for their own inability to control that troublesome little dangly thing between their legs.
I remember SC, she's got, I believe, two profiles on Medium - she writes about crime and writing under the other one. 'SC' is the one who challenged me to stop bitching about victim feminism and start offering solutions, which I've been doing since. Bright lady, but I'll note she may not understand religious fundamentalism as well as those of us who've lived with American fundamentalism, even if outside it as you and I have. She's from the UK, and I find people from other countries don't always quite understand what these people are like. Margaret Atwood got it wrong for The Handmaid's Tale, too.
The left does like to racialize everything, and did long before George Floyd. There's a great book I read earlier this year by a black sociologist called Hate Crime Hoax: How The Left Is Selling A Fake Race War. He works his way through many so-called race hate crimes in the media and argues that many turn out to be hoaxes (he analyzed over 400 of them). The book's about ten years old, so no Jussie Smollett.
It got me to thinking about the debunking of other 'hate crimes' like Stephen Jiminez's pretty persuasive "The Book of Matthew" arguing that Matthew Shepard wasn't killed because he was gay (esp as he and one of his killers, who was pretty famously in Laramie bi-curious, at the least, had had sexual contact with each other before) but for a drug deal gone bad. Shepard knew something was coming because he spoke of how scared he was in the weeks before his murder, but man, do people *not* like you to talk about how it wasn't about homophobia!
Because the Atlanta shooter is white, and his victims were Asian, I'll agree with her there may have been a bias there from the beginning (they were Asian and perhaps he fetishized their compliance) but that's a big diff from racism and I also felt, from the beginning, that this was more about religious nuttiness than racism. I don't know where the racism motive stands today.
"Because the Atlanta shooter is white, and his victims were Asian, I'll agree with her there may have been a bias there from the beginning"
Yeah, I wouldn't dispute that there "may" have been bias, my issue is the certainty that there *was*. It's fascinating to me how many people assume that a non-Asian man can't be attracted to Asian women without some degree of fetishisation. I can't decide if it's more offensive to Asian women or to non-Asian men.😄
It's this weird situation where nobody (I presume) would assume fetishisation if the shooter had been an Asian man, but some are assuming it because he's white.
But yes, I think you're right that given the amount of division over racism in America, there's a "natural" instinct to blame it during any racially mixed encounter. I guess my point is, in any number of instances, maybe this instinct is completely wrong.
Well actually...if someone seems to have a preference for another race...including one's own, one might wonder if that person had a fetish. Or even a fetish for a particular look. My last dating partner had a thing for blondes. I guess I didn't see it coming because I'm used to being fetishized by Indian & Middle Eastern men, not white dudes :)
And I was fetishized here by brown Asian dudes for several years after I moved here...interestingly, we had a lot of Indians around where I lived in CT but they didn't seem much interested in me. Brown dudes *here*? It took me awhile to realize I was being fetishized, I wasn't quite sure why mostly brown dudes were reaching out on dating sites...and fast...but there it is. Then I went blonde and had to learn how to walk fast past Indian guys and make no eye contact.
As for whether the Atlanta shooter fetishized Asian women, it's an interesting idea but yes, it would need to be supported by other facts like, "It was the only rub 'n' tug in Atlanta featuring Asian women," and "He had the biggest collection of Asian porn on the planet."
Dudes do fetishize, and the left fetishizes race, LOL!
Sure, but do you make a distinction between fetishisation and attraction? Or preference? I think a fetish is a wildly different thing to somebody who likes blonde hair or even who likes typically Asian features.
"Fetish" is one of those words that's escaped its cage. It refers, explicitly to achieving sexual arousal from an object or from a part of the human body other than then accepted arousals, like woman's breasts or men's muscles or genitalia. To be aroused by feet is a fetish; to be aroused only by members of a certain race is not a fetish, it's a preference.
If you are sexually aroused by the sight of leather straps, you have a fetish.
The gray areas are secondary sexual characteristics like body hair.
The guy last year definitely exhibited a fetish for blonde women, and VERY much so for something else which I won't get into here, but it came out that he was very into porn which would explain both. A conversation about what we found attractive in others found him almost exclusively attracted to blonde women. So yeah, I'm gonna call it a fetish because I'm sorry, the human race is way too varied and good-looking to not be able to find *anyone* of another race and type attractive.
Yeah, I hear you. I'm definitely not saying there's no such thing as a fetishist. But this is a version of the "if you don't sleep with tarn people you're a transphobe'" argument, right?
Are you a penis fetishist because you sleep with "cis" men but not trans men? Or are the vast majority of women "height" fetishists because they aren't attracted to shorter men?
But more to the point, a man who is attracted to Asian women isn't necessarily *only* attracted to Asian women. Nobody is claiming as far as I'm aware that Long was only attracted to Asian women. He just went to an Asian massage parlour.
I get what you're saying. I think my ex fetishized blonde women because the reason why we split up was over his wanting to move to southern California, and I said I didn't want to move to a fucked state in a fucked country. He was definitely not into women of other races although he'd gone out with a few; blondes came up over and over again in his conversation, and we split up over California. Furthermore, it came out early that he watched a LOT of porn and he had two very strong desires for a certain look and a certain sexual practice, to the exclusion of everything else. He would do other stuff, but he really had a big thing for this one practice which wasn't offensive or harmful to me, but it definitely didn't do anything for me. I call them fetishes because of how much they came up in conversation when we talked about sex - blondes, this particular look and this particular practice. I wondered if he actually knew what he really liked in bed because it struck me (I could be wrong about this) that he everything he thought he liked he learned from porn. It's why I've gotten so interested in the past year in porn and its effect on men. Because I had no idea how common it is, and now I understand why men ask more often "Do you do anal?" That's now a big red flag for me that he likely watches a lot of porn, and I wonder if he's capable of emotional connection with a woman. My answer is now, "No, I don't do any of that porny shit." And I promptly lose interest.
Yeah, I'm sticking to calling him a fetishist.
BTW, he got REAL defensive in the earlierst convo we had about porn - BEFORE I knew he watched it - when I brought up a book I'd read that talked about how many women and girls are sex trafficked on YouPorn, PornHub, and other popular sites. Which led me down another rabbit hole - the resistance of men to so-called 'progressive' and 'feminist' women when it threatens male sexual pleasure. Denial really *is* a river in Egypt for them.
In a country clearly divided by lots of racism - not all of it white - it just seems 'natural' to ascribe racially, at least partially, to the Atlanta narrative. I haven't followed the story since what, last year, I think, when it happened? I remember opening an article I wrote on Medium with the story, the article being how we have to start calling out misogyny in religious and ethnic cultures and name names. (Ironically, Medium published that fine but I'd have never gotten it passed by the approval team at Vocal.media which once rejected a story for 'hate speech' because I'd made a snarky reference to Catholic priest pedophilia. Removing the specificity got it passed.) Problem is, as you point out, at least at that time there wasn't much to point to racism rather than religious nuttiness, esp how typical it is for conservative men to blame women for their own inability to control that troublesome little dangly thing between their legs.
I remember SC, she's got, I believe, two profiles on Medium - she writes about crime and writing under the other one. 'SC' is the one who challenged me to stop bitching about victim feminism and start offering solutions, which I've been doing since. Bright lady, but I'll note she may not understand religious fundamentalism as well as those of us who've lived with American fundamentalism, even if outside it as you and I have. She's from the UK, and I find people from other countries don't always quite understand what these people are like. Margaret Atwood got it wrong for The Handmaid's Tale, too.
The left does like to racialize everything, and did long before George Floyd. There's a great book I read earlier this year by a black sociologist called Hate Crime Hoax: How The Left Is Selling A Fake Race War. He works his way through many so-called race hate crimes in the media and argues that many turn out to be hoaxes (he analyzed over 400 of them). The book's about ten years old, so no Jussie Smollett.
It got me to thinking about the debunking of other 'hate crimes' like Stephen Jiminez's pretty persuasive "The Book of Matthew" arguing that Matthew Shepard wasn't killed because he was gay (esp as he and one of his killers, who was pretty famously in Laramie bi-curious, at the least, had had sexual contact with each other before) but for a drug deal gone bad. Shepard knew something was coming because he spoke of how scared he was in the weeks before his murder, but man, do people *not* like you to talk about how it wasn't about homophobia!
Because the Atlanta shooter is white, and his victims were Asian, I'll agree with her there may have been a bias there from the beginning (they were Asian and perhaps he fetishized their compliance) but that's a big diff from racism and I also felt, from the beginning, that this was more about religious nuttiness than racism. I don't know where the racism motive stands today.
"Because the Atlanta shooter is white, and his victims were Asian, I'll agree with her there may have been a bias there from the beginning"
Yeah, I wouldn't dispute that there "may" have been bias, my issue is the certainty that there *was*. It's fascinating to me how many people assume that a non-Asian man can't be attracted to Asian women without some degree of fetishisation. I can't decide if it's more offensive to Asian women or to non-Asian men.😄
It's this weird situation where nobody (I presume) would assume fetishisation if the shooter had been an Asian man, but some are assuming it because he's white.
But yes, I think you're right that given the amount of division over racism in America, there's a "natural" instinct to blame it during any racially mixed encounter. I guess my point is, in any number of instances, maybe this instinct is completely wrong.
Well actually...if someone seems to have a preference for another race...including one's own, one might wonder if that person had a fetish. Or even a fetish for a particular look. My last dating partner had a thing for blondes. I guess I didn't see it coming because I'm used to being fetishized by Indian & Middle Eastern men, not white dudes :)
And I was fetishized here by brown Asian dudes for several years after I moved here...interestingly, we had a lot of Indians around where I lived in CT but they didn't seem much interested in me. Brown dudes *here*? It took me awhile to realize I was being fetishized, I wasn't quite sure why mostly brown dudes were reaching out on dating sites...and fast...but there it is. Then I went blonde and had to learn how to walk fast past Indian guys and make no eye contact.
As for whether the Atlanta shooter fetishized Asian women, it's an interesting idea but yes, it would need to be supported by other facts like, "It was the only rub 'n' tug in Atlanta featuring Asian women," and "He had the biggest collection of Asian porn on the planet."
Dudes do fetishize, and the left fetishizes race, LOL!
"Dudes do fetishize"
Sure, but do you make a distinction between fetishisation and attraction? Or preference? I think a fetish is a wildly different thing to somebody who likes blonde hair or even who likes typically Asian features.
(donning wordcop hat)
"Fetish" is one of those words that's escaped its cage. It refers, explicitly to achieving sexual arousal from an object or from a part of the human body other than then accepted arousals, like woman's breasts or men's muscles or genitalia. To be aroused by feet is a fetish; to be aroused only by members of a certain race is not a fetish, it's a preference.
If you are sexually aroused by the sight of leather straps, you have a fetish.
The gray areas are secondary sexual characteristics like body hair.
(doffing wordcop hat)
Yeah, agreed. I think maybe *arousal* that is *only* caused by members of a certain “race” could reasonably be described as a fetish.
But *attraction* to the typical features of a particular race, especially if this doesn’t exclude others, seems to me to be just a preference.
What would you call it if a person is ONLY attracted to a very specific type?
The guy last year definitely exhibited a fetish for blonde women, and VERY much so for something else which I won't get into here, but it came out that he was very into porn which would explain both. A conversation about what we found attractive in others found him almost exclusively attracted to blonde women. So yeah, I'm gonna call it a fetish because I'm sorry, the human race is way too varied and good-looking to not be able to find *anyone* of another race and type attractive.
Yeah, I hear you. I'm definitely not saying there's no such thing as a fetishist. But this is a version of the "if you don't sleep with tarn people you're a transphobe'" argument, right?
Are you a penis fetishist because you sleep with "cis" men but not trans men? Or are the vast majority of women "height" fetishists because they aren't attracted to shorter men?
But more to the point, a man who is attracted to Asian women isn't necessarily *only* attracted to Asian women. Nobody is claiming as far as I'm aware that Long was only attracted to Asian women. He just went to an Asian massage parlour.
I get what you're saying. I think my ex fetishized blonde women because the reason why we split up was over his wanting to move to southern California, and I said I didn't want to move to a fucked state in a fucked country. He was definitely not into women of other races although he'd gone out with a few; blondes came up over and over again in his conversation, and we split up over California. Furthermore, it came out early that he watched a LOT of porn and he had two very strong desires for a certain look and a certain sexual practice, to the exclusion of everything else. He would do other stuff, but he really had a big thing for this one practice which wasn't offensive or harmful to me, but it definitely didn't do anything for me. I call them fetishes because of how much they came up in conversation when we talked about sex - blondes, this particular look and this particular practice. I wondered if he actually knew what he really liked in bed because it struck me (I could be wrong about this) that he everything he thought he liked he learned from porn. It's why I've gotten so interested in the past year in porn and its effect on men. Because I had no idea how common it is, and now I understand why men ask more often "Do you do anal?" That's now a big red flag for me that he likely watches a lot of porn, and I wonder if he's capable of emotional connection with a woman. My answer is now, "No, I don't do any of that porny shit." And I promptly lose interest.
Yeah, I'm sticking to calling him a fetishist.
BTW, he got REAL defensive in the earlierst convo we had about porn - BEFORE I knew he watched it - when I brought up a book I'd read that talked about how many women and girls are sex trafficked on YouPorn, PornHub, and other popular sites. Which led me down another rabbit hole - the resistance of men to so-called 'progressive' and 'feminist' women when it threatens male sexual pleasure. Denial really *is* a river in Egypt for them.