I don’t get it. What’s the line between being into something which is obviously fine and good and “fetishizing” them? This guy is into Latin moms, I don’t see what’s so wrong about that
For Viewing it as Problematic:
Focusing on “Latina moms” can be seen as reducing individuals to stereotypes based on their race and role as mothers, which objectifies and disrespects their full identity.
Against Viewing it as Problematic:
If expressed respectfully and consensually, a preference for “Latina moms” could be seen as just another personal attraction, highlighting the diversity in human sexual interests.
Why Yellow Fever Isn’t Flattering: A Case Against Racial Fetishes
Abstract: Most discussions of racial fetish center on the question of whether it is caused by negative racial stereotypes. In this paper I adopt a different strategy, one that begins with the experiences of those targeted by racial fetish rather than those who possess it; that is, I shift focus away from the origins of racial fetishes to their effects as a social phenomenon in a racially stratified world. I examine the case of preferences for Asian women, also known as ‘yellow fever’, to argue against the claim that racial fetishes are unobjectionable if they are merely based on personal or aesthetic preference rather than racial stereotypes. I contend that even if this were so, yellow fever would still be morally objectionable because of the disproportionate psychological burdens it places on Asian and Asian- American women, along with the role it plays in a pernicious system of racial social meanings.
I think the “reducing to roles” thing is a bit silly. Some are into firemen but I feel like it’d be silly to run around calling that morally objectionable. I don’t think anyone is under the impression a fireman, a teacher or a mom is literally just that role and nothing else.
I wonder if the race thing would be fine if it was towards the majority group of a country, since most of the objection from the paper seems to be about how it disadvantages people and enforces that disadvantage. That’d lead in funny situations though where being into white guys or gals would be fine in the US but not into black guys or gals. And in Japan it’d be fine to be into Asian guys or gals but not everyone else.
You’re into what you’re into but fetishizing people is still bad.
I don’t get it. What’s the line between being into something which is obviously fine and good and “fetishizing” them? This guy is into Latin moms, I don’t see what’s so wrong about that
Good question. First, from plagiarism machine:
Now, from a researcher who addresses the second point above:
What do y’all think?
I think the “reducing to roles” thing is a bit silly. Some are into firemen but I feel like it’d be silly to run around calling that morally objectionable. I don’t think anyone is under the impression a fireman, a teacher or a mom is literally just that role and nothing else.
I wonder if the race thing would be fine if it was towards the majority group of a country, since most of the objection from the paper seems to be about how it disadvantages people and enforces that disadvantage. That’d lead in funny situations though where being into white guys or gals would be fine in the US but not into black guys or gals. And in Japan it’d be fine to be into Asian guys or gals but not everyone else.
Eh, philosophical researcher.
:) wonder how she’d feel about that specification!
Depends on what she thinks of nihilism lol