We’ve already discussed it here, and more recently here, but we still haven’t had a complete resolution of this issue. What is the best (i.e least offensive while still being reasonably descriptive) word to describe the look we associate with Pacific islanders? That is, dark skin, relatively robust features (compared with other Asians) etc.? Is islander itself the best word? Native? Indigenous? Tropical? Something else? Have your say here!
Please note that “primitive” has already been disqualified, due to its highly offensive connotations for many people.
(Visited 15 times, 1 visits today)
Although I think tropical is the least offensive term, as Christine pointed out elsewhere, there is a severe problem of newcomers to this forum not understanding what it means. Hence, at this point I am leaning towards lawboy’s suggestion of islander.
However, as I said earlier, I am concerned that it may carry racist connotations as well. But the term is very accurate (which I personally like!), and it is probably impossible to completely avoid offense on this issue. Hence, it may be the best that we can do.
Tropical is weird.
Primitive and indigenous is kinda offensive, they looks like judgments and are too much connected to colonial issues.
Islander doesn’t offend anyone, seems the best to me. You’re talking about Pacific ISLANDERS look, why do you need other word?
Primitive really offends me too, because it offends my taste, because I really love the filipina, thai, hawaiian (etc) look.
How about you just say she’s “not that attractive” or “She is…”
Say things like…”That’s why I like Filipinas….. especially with the high cheek bones….” or “with dark skin…”
A good looking woman is a good looking woman….you don’t need pick her apart like as if you were doing some kind of archeology project and then categorizing her worth based on her ethnicity. Keep it simple. There’s no need to make things more complicated than it really needs to be.
😉
I like “Pacific Islander” because I can immediately identify certain characteristics as opposed to a “typical” woman that you would associate with China (Han), Korea or Japan.
“Island Beauty” or simply “Pacific” could work I think.
Its hard because if you want to say “Bronze Beauty” that may offend someone because it is all placing emphasis on their pigmentation.
But to describe that certain look I think a regional descriptive is best such as “Islander” or “Thai” because then we can understand that she is from either the islands or from the mainland of Southern Asia.
I know that I am fairly new around here, but thought to give my opinion on this topic as well. I would say the term, if there needs to be one as I believe chocopie summed it up pretty well, would be Pacific Islander. Like Warchief above, it automatically denotes certain physical features. Just as you think of certain features when you hear Japanese, Vietnamese, etc.
Looks like we’re coming to a consensus on islander already! Does anyone have any objections to using this term?
And Kabbala, it doesn’t matter if you’re new or just a lurker, your contributions are welcome. I’d really like to get this issue settled once and for all!
There’s no telling what term someone is going to be offended by. If people are offended by indigenous, then what guarantee is there that they won’t be offended by a new term down the road? Are we going to say that she is too tropical looking or too “t” for my taste? And why do only dark skin Asians need such a term in the first place? I’m just going to avoid using any of these terms.
Yeah, I agree: using tropical in this way does sound rather awkward! Still, I think islander will work.
Hell there is an add on this site for ‘Pacific Beauty..’ Might as well stick with that.
what’s wrong with just using the term she looks ‘exotic’ keep it simple guys!
To me, Primitive sounds like your talking about a caveman or something. Maybe even a dinosaur. I think “Pacific Islander” or just “Islander” sounds good. Butttt…what do I know. 🙂
I like boobs.
me too arf 🙂
even though i suggested islander, i prefer Indigeneous. some indigeneous looking gal may not be from an island. either way, if they look like Thitima, they are hot indigeneous 🙂
i prefer exotic also it fits and isnt derogatory in any way…
@arf… i like boobs too
I’m going to scotch exotic right away – it’s just way too general. I mean, what are we going say? “She’s too exotic for me”? That makes it sound as though we’re against anyone who looks foreign, which obviously isn’t the case! This one just doesn’t work.
Looks like someones got a little scotch on their mind. A little scotch does sound good right about now. 🙂
Not me – I don’t drink!
I just enjoy the pictures, keep them coming and Thank you to the members that submit them.
I live in New Zealand which has the world’s largest population of Pacific Peoples and work in a sector that is notoriously politically correct. The currently accepted term is “Pacific Peoples” to describe those whose origins lie in places like Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, Hawaii etc. “Pacific beauty” or “Pacific girl” would probably be acceptable and racially non-offensive. The term Islander is pejorative because of its historical use as a term to describe people from the Pacific Islands who came to western countries in the 1970s, didn’t handle drink well, got involved in quite a bit of violent crime and got rounded up by the police quite a lot and deported. You used to see newspaper headlines like “woman raped by Islander” or “100 Islanders deported” or “Islanders should not be sold alcohol” and that sort of thing. Back in the bad old days we just called them “coconuts” and thought that they should go back to their villages.
Hmmm, “she looks too Pacific to me” doesn’t really work either.
Still, we don’t exactly feature many models from New Zealand here – are there any other countries that find islander offensive?
I say either go with indigenous or go with nothing. Anything else will sound silly and exotic is way too general. And there is no guarantee that this new word won’t offend anyone because it’s still serving the same purpose as indigenous but in a more friendly sounding fashion to describe a certain look. For the few who post, there are hundreds who just read the articles and who know what they may be offended by.
I’m going to continue not to use such a term because I don’t want to be describe with a such a term no matter how unoffensive it may sound.
Here’s a word: atavistic.
But like I was saying, if you can be offended by indigenous, then you can be offended by any other term you guys settle on. And words that are down the line of sounding the least offensive defeat the purpose and readers won’t know what the hell you are talking about if you use words like tropical, pacific, islander, etc.
“Indigenous” has that old National Geographic “primitive native peoples” feel about it that says conquered, colonised, dark-skinned and backwark. We don’t say that blond-haired, blue-eyed Swedes are indigenous, we say that they are North European or just European. We are also making some very big assumptions about who are indigenous, meaning the original inhabitants, because original habitation is often disputed or denied. It is better to stick with geographic descriptions such as Pacific People which can cover the numerous distinctive races such as Maoris, Tokelauans, Fijians or Samoans scattered about the 1000 or so islands of the Pacific.
Here is a workable solution I propose:
With a few occasional exceptions, all of the ladies posted here are Asian in the general sense….or we would not be posting them. But of course, there are different “looks” within the broad category of “Asian”.
Lee, and some others, have a preference for the lighter skinned Asian ladies with more delicate features. The Asian ladies with darker skin and less delicate features are not their preference.
I don’t believe any of the descriptive words (both offensive and non-offensive) discussed in the past, or in this thread, really nail the point in a single word. Let’s just say there is not always a single word for every possible situation. Too bad, we need one now! 🙂
So, why not just say something like:
“This girl is not my type because of her darker skin and less delicate features.”
OR
“This girl is not my type because I prefer lighter skin and more delicate features.”
I don’t think statements like that will offend anybody and I think it gets the point across in a precise manner.
That should be a workable solution.
Comments people? Lee?
Northman, I tried explaining that solution in the Chelsea topic but to no avail. I really agree though, but using a single term benefits those who are too lazy and/or think it cooler to use a single term to boost their e-ego. (other reasons possible too, i am sure.)
I do agree that we don’t necessarily need a single word as a descriptor, but could use statements, like Northman said.
If we had to use a word couldn’t we use something like “Mongolian features”. I know Mongoloid has been used in a derogatory fashion in connection with people with Downes Syndrome, but just Mongolian may be alright. Look up the definition on wikipedia.
We could just say southeast asian. I would think that would cover the people we are discussing. I know southeast asian might not cover some pacific island peoples, but how likely are we going to talk about a tongan or fijian model.
If we are talking about Pacific Islanders, we should refer to them as such. I found this on wikipedia:
Pacific Islanders
In normal usage Asian does not refer to the people from the Pacific Islands who are usually called Pacific Islanders.[57] The term “Asians and Pacific Islanders” or “Asia/Pacific” was used on the 1990 US Census.[58] As late as 2001, they were consided by most Americans to be the same racial group as Asians due to a perception of their implicit contrast to “whiteness”.[59] However, in the 2000 US Census, many Pacific Islanders did not consider themselves the same social identity as Asians, and classified themselves separately
If the main point of this is to classify someone as less of a polished look, you could do as my asian wife says, “I’m a country girl” rather than being a beautified city person that probably has had a couple of generations of relatives that moved to the cities and met other “beautiful” people in the city for breeding. Does that make sense? I don’t know if I’m presenting it right, but I hope you get the gist of it. So call a girl “country” if it fits better.
What ever we call them, they’re all beautiful to me. i like many different asian women “looks”. Light , dark, skinny, full figured, it works for me.
NM, jd — You can surely be specific and I’ll (we’ll) know what you mean, as in “because of her darker skin and less delicate features”. I see this as the “fallback” position, since it’s wordy.
I don’t see the use of a single term as an “ego booster”, though I do see the original primitive/indigenous/native in that order as too National Geographic sounding for this site, despite anyone’s intentions not to deliberately offend.
A single term would be economy of words, conveying a complex definition which is understood by the community.
That being said, we could also coin a word, or borrow a non-English word that we can associate the subtlety with. Plenty of precedent for that — in the photography world there’s the concept of “bokeh”, which comes from the Japanese “boke” for “blur”. You can simplify its meaning to “selective blur”, but those who’ve debated it enough say it’s a fuller definition than that. See the Wikipedia entry and various camera forums.
You’ve also got coined words all over popular culture: yuppie/hippie/buppie, ABC, def, jiggy, and so on, and the urbandictionary.com. To that end, I like “sopa” (“south pacific”), as in “That is a fine sopa chickababe.” Or “I like her tan, but she’s looking a little too sopa for me.”
Throw that silly one out and nominate your own if you like. I like “tropical”, but I can see it bringing to mind a drink or a storm condition. Also like “islander”, but after babysnakes’ post, and it’s interesting how sensitive of a term it is in NZ/Aus. There’s also the UK vs US use of “Asian” and “oriental”.
It’s nice to see this being talked out so carefully, and I think it’s great that the mods are trying to be considerate. I like the A-S blog and have always found it a fun and tasteful daily distraction.
Anyway, that’s enough of my rambling. Most of the time any mental or verbal feedback I have at the pics and videos here is probably lewd enough that I’d be moderated right off the site if I posted it. Dismissing the odd post that I find annoying on a technicality or revealing of some random person’s prejudices is a trivial price to pay for what is otherwise a free site.
Please use your back button now to enjoy more saucy Asian minxes. That Nina Carla is a fine sopa honey!
spyc basically has it: describing the look in question each time is just too wordy. I see no problem with having a single word for the job, so long as it isn’t too offensive. I continue to lean toward islander, as it is very accurate and would seem unlikely to offend the likely subjects of this site – I don’t believe we would ever feature a Maori, as they are off-topic (Bic Runga was featured here, but that was due to her Chinese blood).
Lee, how would “islander” fit a dark skinned Thai lady? There are many mainland Thai ladies who are quite dark.
I don’t think there is a single word that will work because there are too many regions that fit the “darker skin and less delicate features” description.
It’s better to be wordy and accurate than to chose a single word that does not fit. And it’s not really wordy, it’s just a short phrase.
Lee, you are usually a stickler for details and accuracy. I’m surprised you would be lazy on this and stick to a single word description that will never be accurate.
It is a description of a look, not necessarily actual geography – and dark skinned Thais do have the sort of look that is associated with islanders. I think this is for a good reason, as I believe they are ultimately of Polynesian (hence islander) descent, so the description is probably accurate anyway.
What about islandy?
Long time poster, first time reader:
wait . . .
Long first reader, post time . . .
no . . .
Long post firster . . .
(f* it, you know what I mean)
(On-topic comments):
Firstly, I see no logical basis for the offense taken by some, from the use of the term ‘primitive’ (in the context of physical features). For me, the term is synonymous with ‘unsullied’. I believe the offense stems from the perceived inference of a state of technological/economic or social development. Since we’re discussing physical attributes alone, societal/technical/economic issues are irrelevant. However, I fully understand how difficult (nearly impossible) it is to ‘reprogram’ someone’s mindset about any particular concept. That being said, the choice to abandon the term is a reasonable action.
‘Islander’ seems the most accurately descriptive term for your purposes, here. It does offer a degree of geographic specificity, however. I would propose a minor modification: (Refining Candyman’s suggestion of “islandy”) ‘Islander-ish’ – resembling physical traits often associated with peoples of the southern Pacific islands.
It sounds rather sophomoric, but it ‘gets the job done’. Perhaps someone can offer a further refinement.
(Off-topic comment):
I’ve read the posts to this blog extensively, and I’d like to point out the common misuse of the term ‘racist’. Throughout hundreds of posts, I’ve yet to find it used in the proper context. Without fail, the word is incorrectly used in place of the word ‘racial’ (or ‘bigoted’, or ‘prejudiced’). There is a very significant difference between the two:
The word ‘racial’ merely indicates a specific race of people. It is not inherently derogatory. asian-sirens.com is a racial website. (and G_d love you for it)!
“Chinese girls are cute”. This is a racial statement. Is it derogatory? I think not.
“East African people are lazy”. Another racial statement.
“East African people are lazy, so I’d never hire one”. This is most definitely a “racist” statement. Can you understand the difference?
To be a ‘racist’, one must IMPOSE his/her race UPON another. Therefore, you can NOT BE a racist, unless you are in some position of power over another.
Sorry for the ‘rant’ . . . hopefully, I’m not ‘full-of-crap’! 🙂
Very well said matso – you have very accurately described the intent of our use of “primitive” on Asian Sirens in the past! Your distinction of racial from racist is also refreshing to read.
Anway, I am happy with “islander-ish” or “islandy” – somewhat awkward, but accurate and probably easily understood by new readers. What do our readers think of these suggestions?
you know what’s more accurate? calling them Filipino, Korean, Chinese, and East African…because that’s what they are. It’s not rocket science.
Right, so you want us to say “she looks too Filipina to me”? How offensive would that be?
We’re after a word to describe a certain look, independent of race – we already have perfectly good words to describe the races themselves.
like I said, it’s not rocket science.
Offensive or not, that’s not the point….it’s about the B$ people come up just to point out….that a certain look is associated with her race and then using a term to describe it.
It’s just all Bull$hit…both those who find the word “exotic” or “primitive” to be offensive or relevant. Basically, I don’t need to use “good words” to describe a race because it doesn’t really matter since all we are drooling over is one GOOD LOOKING WOMAN at a time….who just happen to be “exotic” or “primitive.”
If it were rocket science, it would be much simpler: Math and physics lack ambiguity. The elements of language are far more complex, being open to individual interpretation. This is evidenced by the way chocopie has completely misconstrued the nature of this thread.
Without individual interpretation of language, not only would it be effortless to find a synonym for ‘primitive’, there would actually be no need.
Since we do have to consider how a word will be interpreted (and the potential misinterpretations), this may end up being a futile pursuit. There may not exist a single word that will serve the intended function. A reasonable compromise will likely be the end result.
A few other terms that have come to mind:
Unsullied (mentioned previously)
Undiluted
Pure
Rural (inspired by cj1raven’s quote of his wife, “I’m a country girl”)
None of these sound better to me than a modification of ‘islander’.
The word for a Pacific Islander is Polynesian. Filipinas are not Polynesian, they are Filipinas. Indonesians are not Polynesian and neither are Thais. I think Polynesian culture stops right around the Maori people of NZ, who like to beat their women with clubs and starts near Fiji where the men wear dresses.
I think the word that some people are looking for that describes the more base description of prominent physical features could be tribal, though I’m sure that conjures up images of henna tattoos for some, while makes others wanna call the NAACP.
To be frank, one should call a spade a spade, and use the proper vocabulary and a little tact. “I prefer white meat,” may sound better than “I hate dark niggers” to some. While saying, “I don’t like her because she looks too Polynesian, Filipina, etc.” seems a fair enough comment; however, my mother always taught me: If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say it at all.
Therefore, for all you out there who are commenting on pictures of people that you will probably never, ever meet–let alone have the opportunity to have sex with–it might be best to say, “I like the other white meat,” or “I prefer my steak done medium, but pink on the inside,” or–one of my favorites, “I take my coffee black, like my men” and leave it at that.
Once again, a very well stated and insightful post matso!
Still, I can’t agree with any of your new suggestions, as they aren’t really descriptive of the specific look in question. It seems that islander or some derivation thereof is still the way to go. However, I would like to at least hear Christine’s opinion on this before we make a final decision (given her extensive readings in this area).
Kimfucious, your reference to Maoris in your first parargraph is explicitly racist (and I dare say ill informed), and your reference to Fijians is implicitly so, as you are obviously speaking about them in derisive terms. This is totally unacceptable here.
I feel like I’m watching an episode of the Peanuts. A lot of blahblahblah.B$. 🙂
chocopie, if you don’t have anything useful to contribute, then don’t contribute anything at all. You may not see the need to address this issue (or indeed what we are actually trying to address), but obviously many of our readers do.
AH! Another example of language being misconstrued. Chocopie’s reference to the unintelligible Peanuts school teacher was welcomed levity, for me. Dr. Lee interpreted it completely differently.
(The ‘smiley face emoticon’ at the end of the post might suggest I have the more correct interpretation, eh)?
Interesting thing, language . . .
Back to the topic at hand:
Islander-like?
Come on, Christine . . . we’re on the edge of our seats, here!
Although I’m not really familiar with peanuts, my interpretation is based mainly on the “B$” at the end which, combined with chocopie’s earlier comments, leads me to believe my interpration was correct. 🙂
Oh my . . . I missed that! I thought it was a typo! NOBODY is exempt from misinterpretation!
Still, it gave me a giggle.
(An imitation of the school teacher’s voice in the Peanuts television specials is occasionally used, in a jovial manner, to indicate boredom with a conversation. It sounds like a muted trumpet: Wah wah wah wa-waaaaaah. If you’d ever seen one of the tv specials, you would have appreciated the humor . . . not at all disrespectful, I believe).
Originally, I felt that terms such as indigenous were racist/bigoted, but really I think it’s the intent that matters most. Additionally, I have noticed that in the Philippines, for example, it certainly appears that the majority of popular actresses (bold or not) are mestizo, so it seems as if that is the look that is preferred there.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with the look we are talking about — beautiful is beautiful, regardless. Please remember that the name of the site is ASIAN-sirens, not Japanese/Korean/Northern Chinese-sirens.However, if we must agree on a term, I would have to vote for Islander.
Dr. Lee, I think you’re a bit trigger happy with your paint-someone-a-racist water pistol. Maori’s are a violent breed, or didn’t you see the movie? Anyhow, it’s possibly genetic (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=120718). Regardless, I’m sure that there are some very fine Maori people just as there are in every race, creed, and culture.
The sulu wearing Fijians, however, I think go more for comfort than are prone to genetic predilections.
Nothing I’ve said is racist. I’m not a racist, and I’m very well informed. Perhaps you are just paranoid?
Making a sweeping, derisive assessment of people on the basis of their race is racism. To simply paint Maoris as people “who like to beat their women with clubs” is clearly racist. I am aware there is a lot of violence in Maori society (I saw Once Were Warriors too), but they hardly all go around beating their women with clubs – you are obviously trying to equate them with cavemen here. And the derogatory intent of your comment about Fijians “wearing dresses” is clear. As Wingsfan19 says, the important thing here is the intent in what you write.
Either Kimfucious is a racist, or he/she is doing a perfect imitation of one. perhaps just trying to fan the flames?
How about “Southeast Asian look”?
By that I wouldn’t think Polynesian or Australian, and by not using “islander” it’s inclusive of all the continental countries in that region. It also avoids the negative stigma of the use of islander in the Australian/NZ press. It’d be similar to the use of “South Asian” to refer to India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Nepal/Sri Lanka.
It’s not “primitive” or “rural”, lest we offend anyone’s sensibility that it implies that the speaker is more evolved or better off, and it’s vague enough geographically to avoid a “she looks too Vietnamese” kind comment.
On a side note, I never liked the word “oriental”, but I take it to mean Chinese/Japanese/Korean. “East Asian” seems to work there too.
I must laugh at this thread as it goes on and on. I already stated above there is not one word to state the descrption everyone is looking for.
My solution was decribed as “wordy”, but look at all the 1000’s of words typed above in all the replies that still have not solved it. Now that is wordy!
None of the single words proposed here accurately get to the point and I don’t believe one will ever be found.
Again I say, use a phrase something like this:
This girl is not my type because of her darker skin and less delicate features.
So simple!
Austronesian.
NorthMan, I didn’t want to believe you, way up yonder^, so I gave a lot of serious thought to the problem. I’m starting to agree with you.
Perhaps it’s time to consider a more fundamental question:
What compels us to explain WHY we don’t like something?
“She’s not my type because she’s . . .
(Are you ready for this)?
. . . notmytype”
There! How could I possibly have offended anyone? Nobody cares what my type is any more than I care about someone else’s type.
What could be simpler? This: “She’s not my type”.
Simplest yet? (silence)
All done . . . time to resume the search for those who ARE my type 🙂
I think ‘less delicate features’ is not nice.
Next try. 🙂
I like ‘notmytype’.
So…. there isn’t a verdict yet?
People like to use pithy, one word descriptions (often abbreviations) to describe certain concepts that come up frequently. It is one of the ways that people who frequent a certain forum such as this one connect with one another. And over the long haul, that abbreviation will save time! Besides, repeating the same wordy description is just tedious and boring. ‘notmytype’ is once again just too general. So far I don’t see any major problem with islander or a derivative. Once again, it is a description of a look – it doesn’t have to reflect actual geography.
I’m still waiting on Christine’s verdict – I guess she’s too caught up with her studies right now.
Oh BTW, for me this discussion isn’t a waste of time at all. I think these sorts of issues can be interesting in themselves, and it’s good to gain insight into what other people think, and what may offend them. For example, before relaunching Asian Sirens, I had no idea that “oriental” was considered offensive by many Asian Americans. If true to form, lamboap will now step in and say I’m a racist just for mentioning the “o” word. Yet in spite of this, lamboap has yet to make a single positive contribution to any of our discussions to try and resolve these sorts of issues.
Dr. Lee,
First, objects are Oriental; people are Asian, and I agree with you that this is a very educational thread.
Second, I’m not a racist; however, I think you are using the term Caveman in a racist fashion. The Maori may have stemmed from a tribal clan, but they are Polynesian–clearly not Cavemen.
Speaking of Cavemen, were they primitive? Did they have prominent features? Did they wear their furs like skirts? Were they indigenous to certain areas of the world? Would any of them be featured here on Asian Sirens with their boobs on display, holding their clubs provocatively? Would it be racist to say, “Cro-mag chicks make-a-me sick?”
I think the key thing here is that we are looking to employ euphemisms to candy-coat descriptives of racial traits in order to not offend anyone.
William Safire once wrote in his book, “How Not to Write” the following:
“The U.S. Embassy in Budapest used to hand each arriving diplomat a packet that included this warning: ‘It must be assumed that available casual indigenous female companions work for or cooperate with the Hungarian government security establishment.’ It would have been better for our counterintelligence efforts if somebody had said, ‘The local whores are spies.'”
What I find ironic in all of the Peanut’s talk above is the fact that it only seems racist when someone uses a racial descriptive in the negative sense. “I find her Neanderthal look repugnant” or “Those hairy armpits make me want to vom” seem racist because the beholder is not smitten, while “I love women with one eyebrow” and “That primitive patois really charges my nads” don’t seem to bother anyone (unless, of course, the irony is completely lost on them).
My advice? Use all the words in your arsenal, expand your vocabulary, be nice, be correct, and hold the negative comments to yourself because who really cares or not who or what you dislike when you’ll never get a chance to bang her anyhow!
First of all, people from the orient are oriental, just as someone from Europe is European. It is a term to describe the region of origin; it applies equally to everything from that region, including people. The offence the word causes is a separate issue.
And it was you who was trying to equate Maoris with cavemen, not I. Plus the derogatory intent of your comments was very clear. This is what made them racist – once again, it is not the words themselves that mater, it’s the intent with which you use them.
Is it comforting to be so wrong and not know it?
As Wingsfan19 says above: “Either Kimfucious is a racist, or he/she is doing a perfect imitation of one.”
Hmm, if Wingsfan19 says so, I must be a racist then. I will now go put on my Grand Wizard raiment and study to be a doctor of anthropology focusing on how reverse Teutonic discrimination prevented the lemurs of Madagascar from developing further down the evolutionary chain. They are furry and I like it!
doc and i can never agree with that term “oriental” i hate it. but he is set in his own ways. 🙂 we can always call him the “shrimp on the barbie” boy 🙂
LOL @ LawBoy – you can call me whatever you want (as long as it’s within our posting guidelines)!
The problem with oriental is that nobody’s come up with a good PC synonym yet, despite my many requests for one. If there is one, I’ll happily use it.
@ Kimfucious: the point is that clearly I am not the only one who perceived your comments as racist. If that was not your intent, why can’t you just say you’re sorry your words were a little too strident?
Aha! In my studies, I have discovered the following pulled from Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary. Yes, my resource material is scanty.
Main Entry:oriental
Function:noun
Inflected Form:-s
Usage:usually capitalized
1 orientals plural , obsolete : oriental languages
2 : a member of one of the indigenous peoples of the Orient (as a Chinese, Indian, or Japanese
This sets me straight!
Once in a bar in Hawaii, I was having a discussion over home brewed beer with a girl of mixed Asian decent. She had never once set foot in Asia, but apparently her roots ran deep. She had corrected me on my misuse of the term Oriental when referring to people. Though I’d already lived in Asia for years, I was in no position to correct her, as her feminine charms had beguiled me so. Still wanting to get into her pants, I didn’t argue the point.
Needless to say, I don’t really want to get into Dr. Lee’s pants, but I do stand corrected in so far as the above definition is concerned.
Did we notice the use of “indigenous?” Is Webster a disliker of dark nipples?
This is the big problem with “indigenous”: it simply isn’t very accurate semantically. We have been using it as a PC synonym for “primitive”, but in reality, the word can apply to any people from any region. Light skin and delicate features is actually the indigenous look of Chinese, for example.
I don’t think there is a term that is out there that is accurate and pleasant sounding at the same time, so I say go with a term that maybe inaccurate, but is unoffensive and gives readers some idea of the type of look you’re trying to describe like my idea for islandy.
Dr. Lee, nice job in separating the wheat from the chaff and getting this thread back on track.
Obviously, the inherent problem here is trying to paint Pacific Islanders with a one-word brush.
You might have ignored the content of some of my earlier posts due to their ostensibly racist tone. The intent, however, was to point to the fact that the entire concept of pidgin-holing an entire group of indigenous peoples under one umbrella is a futile notion.
The fact is that Pacific Islanders are too large a demographic to categorize (i.e. generalize) without breaking it down into subsets. This is why one needs to resort to specific, more accurate vocabulary.
Are we talking about black hair, dark nipples, big lips, or large skulls? I have always found that being as precise as possible usually requires more than a one word descriptor. I mean, really! The quest of a singular moniker to hang upon the necks of all Pacific Islanders is a form of racial profiling ipso facto.
And why did this concept crop up anyhow? Because some people wanted to express their distaste for a certain feature of a certain type of girl. Let’s get back to the basics and show some more tits, please.
“Are we talking about black hair, dark nipples, big lips, or large skulls?”
I think she just described me 🙂 so i am indigeneous?
Now, we see the light!
I have to agree with using “not my type.” It’s simple, accurate, and shouldn’t be considered offensive. for example, although I’m a Caucasian with auburn hair, red heads are “not my type.” This doesn’t mean I find them ugly — it doesn’t even mean that I don’t think they’re attractive, just that I find other types more attractive.
Kimfucious. again, when you describe a group of people as you did, you were making a racist statement. So the question is, do you believe what you said about the Maoris, in which case you are racist, or do you not believe it, and you’re just trying to get a rise out of all of us, in which case you’re a provocateur? However, I do agree with you on the impossibility of trying to categorize all these different Asians/Pacific Islanders. hell, many Filipinos I know can’t seem to decide if they’re Asian or Pacific Islander.
Lawboy, indigenous or not, you’re not my type:-)
The problem with “not my type” is that it is so general that it doesn’t actually serve the purpose of this discussion: what we’re after is a word to describe what it is that makes them not our type – or indeed what actually does make them our type. I think the ideal word could be used in either sense, and I think islander or a derivative fits the bill.
My Dear Doctor, if you cannot see the ridiculousness in stating that “All Maori people beat their women with clubs” and how that relates to “all Pacific Islanders are nappy-headed-ho’s” then I fear you have completely misinterpreted my irony for racism. I’ve no apologies to make nor am I a racist.
Here’s some fun for everyone. There are some tests located on the Net put out by Harvard. Take one; the results may shock you!
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/selectatest.html
Kimfucious: for humour to be successful, it has to be funny, and what you wrote simply wasn’t funny.
I took one of the tests — turns out I have a slight preference for dark skin. I don’t know about that, but it was interesting nonetheless. Kimfucious, if that was irony (or sarcasm) in your previous posts, surely you realize that is much more difficult to get those concepts across in writing rather than verbally. That’s why we rely on emoticons, right?
Again, I stated that either you were racist or imitating one.
Can we please see some more naked babes now (indigenous or otherwise)?
Key word being imitating!
You are helpless, Doctor.
I agree with Wingsfan!
Indiginous? Tribal? Passed out on the bathroom floor?
You tell me!
http://kimfucious.com/travelogue/horn/shooters_files/image001.jpg
http://kimfucious.com/travelogue/horn/tattoo_files/image001.jpg
Kimfucious: as moderator, I cannot let such inflamatory comments pass unless they are obviously humourous. And you only compounded this with your initial responses – it took you an awful long time to even suggest that you weren’t serious.
Dr. Lee, I respect your role as moderator. There is a difference between irony and humor, and I wasn’t really going for humor. Someone hit the nail on the head above when they said that the written word is easily miscontrued. Mea culpa, Mea culpa. Next time I’ll use an emoticon to convey the tone more clearly. I am funny; however, you just don’t know it yet. ;^P
To completely change the subject, though somehow related to tribal and Asian: can anyone identify the girl in the advert on top (red) on the left with the tattoo?
http://www.rankmytattoos.com/tattoos/cultural-tattoos/native-american-tattoos/
I think that we should just make a post if we find the person attractive and not post if we don’t like her. that’s what i usually do. Why would I want to waste my time posting something about a woman I don’t find attractive. If she read the post I’m sure she would feel better if she just read positive reviews. No one needs to hear negative comments about themselves, especially if it’s just based on looks. Considering the amount of negative pressures upon women in today’s society, they don’t need to hear more from us.
And there we have it. I think cj1raven just said it best.
While I take cj1raven’s point, ultimately it comes down to people never making any negative comments. That’s just never going to happen in an internet forum, and it isn’t something I’m prepared to police. But if you personally want to follow cj1raven’s suggestion, that’s fine with me!
cj. i dont know if this is the case or not but i thought we come to AS to critique certain models and/or internet features. as doc said, they put themselves out there as models or celeb. i would think they can use our comments as suggestions to either improve or change for the better. although i do admit sometime the comments are harsh. i just dont think it is beneficial for all comments to be just posititve.
oh my god, i can’t believe there are 84 comments. i haven’t read half of these. i’m going to start reading now. i’m sorry for people who have been waiting on me. i personally don’t think i’m in the best position to pass judgment on such issues as there are so many other people who seem to have a much more informed perspective, but i’m going to try my best. i’m going to e-mail lee my opinions tonight, i hope.
You can leave the passing of judgement to me, but I value your learned opinion and perspective highly. 😉
there is a huge problem with what we are defining as the look. there seems to be a misunderstanding of this look. let us denote this look by Q for the moment.
this is what i understand of doc’s concept: it is sufficient to have dark skin, but it is not necessary in order to be called Q. Q primarily refers to certain facial features – facial features such as a broad nose, very full lips, and strong (square angular face shapes, for instance) bone structure. a combination of these certain facial features would be enough to warrant description by Q.
for instance, in the past, we have featured thai model lily koh and amara from asian4you, both of whom weren’t especially dark like the four naked asian girls on the beach or naria. yet looking at the comments left, the light skinned ones can still be said to look different from our standard asian celebrities like ayumi hamasaki or any famous japanese gravure. dark skin is not necessary to be called Q, but (barely) sufficient. facial features matter more.
on the other hand, i think some readers/commenters/viewers believe that Q is not trying to encapsulate these notions, but rather attempting to generalize the appearances of a few countries’ people. this is probably not true, because it would be possible to find people who look Q in east asia (china, korea, whatever), i think. this idea is probably what led to suggestions such as just flat-out listing the countries (e.g. “this model is too filipina for me”) or the remarks on racial vs. racist intents.
indeed, i believe (repeat: it is my personal opinion) that the issue is not really racial (and thus cannot be racist). it is not the former because it is possible to have both Q-looking and non-Q looking people of the same race.
again, to be clear: if you beg to differ on my understanding of the issue, you will need to state your understanding of it (like urgal nicely did earlier). but i am going to base my next comment having assumed that my interpretation of things as i’ve written in this comment are correct.
(continued in next comment)
an idea which i liked, proposed by spyc, was the creation of a word to serve our purposes. it will have the advantage of very little misconstrual (since we will have a precise definition for them to refer to). viewers not familiar with fora lingo will have to educate themselves on the meaning of the term solely from our usage and definition of it, which means that there will be no pre-existing negative connotations to the word. the downside of this word creation is that it closes the forum off in a way and makes it appear much more inclusive. ideally we would like a a forum where anyone can participate, but it would also be fair to request that those who wish to use/understand the word must be absolutely clear on its meanings – this way we can avoid future lamboap incidents.
the second best solution, IMO, is actually southeast asian. here i agree with northman – i don’t really see islander, as derived from pacific islander, to be very accurate to describe Q at all. on a map, i see the pacific islands as comprised more by small islands like fiji, tonga, samoa, etc., so i feel like we’ve just completely shifted regions in employing this word. was islander actually meant to refer more to ancestry? i took it literally as in the present people in the pacific islands. if we’re going to use a term grounded in geography, we should attempt to be more accurate. i am not confident in my geography/anthropology, but it seems like southeast asian is more accurate, and easily abbreviated to SEA.
the disadvantage of using geographical terms to describe the phenomenon we are talking about is it obviously refers to the people of those regions. this is why i am hesitant to use islander. and this is probably why, again, readers believed we were trying to ascribe a word to a look possessed solely by certain races. though a lot (perhaps most?) of people in SEA may have this look, it is not just them that i would be referring to when i say someone looks very SEA – because, indeed, there could be ‘very lightskinned girls with delicate features’ in these regions, but instead i am referring to an abstract notion that is best exemplified in the facial features of most of the people in this region. does this make sense?
again i am saying all of this assuming that my interpretation (in the previous comment) of the look we are trying to describe is correct. if it is not, then most points i made in this comment are moot.
for completely different reasons, i am not really satisfied with the idea of people just explicitly writing out what they don’t like about a certain girl, like “darker skin, less delicate features,” etc.
i am not satisfied with this because i feel like seldom do people actually examine what really turns them off about that particular person. i mean, when you say “darker skin” as a negative quality, do you really believe that if the model at hand had lighter skin – all things considered – she would be that much more attractive? or is it really instead less her skin color and moreso other facial features? in other words, i feel like employing a “give all details of why you don’t like this girl” system would leave a lot of room for imprecise, damaging comments.
comments like these are damaging because it could be likely that features that are typically correlated with dark skin – like the robust features – would eventually become synonymous with the use of “dark skin” in describing these models. so instead of commenters saying “i don’t like her broad nose, blah blah blah” they would be saying “i don’t like dark-skinned girls,” when it’s not necessarily the dark skin that they are objecting to. when presented with a non dark skinned girl with similar features, they would probably be at a lack of words and say “not my type” without being able to really quantify why.
general inability to accurately determine correlation vs. causation would result in likely a lot of people listing dark skin as a negative trait, but this can really exacerbate asian sensitivity to skin color as a status symbol and scale for measuring beauty. in other words, i don’t want a lot of asian readers out there thinking that the root of peoples’ reactions if dark skin, when it’s actually something else.
(p.s. lee i chose not to e-mail and just post all the comments here. i figured it would be good to include them in the discussion :D)
Thanks for your thoughts Christine! As usual, you’ve given me a lot of food for thought. I agree with pretty much everything you say (including your interpretation of my original question), except that I really think southeast Asian is actually less accurately descriptive of the look in question than islander. For example, Vietnamese are one of the major southeast Asian nationalities, and they often have some of the most delicate features (and lightest skin) of all Asians (although they do normally have quite full lips, which is usually a feature of the look in question).
Yes, the Pacific island nations are mostly like the ones you cite (and not normally considered to be “Asian”). However, the people of those islands do share the sorts of facial features (and skin colour) in question, so when applied only as a description of features (not race or geography), I think islander is still a reasonably accurate description of the look in question. Plus, the “Asian” races (e.g. Issarn Thais and Filipinas) normally associated with these sorts of features are very likely descended from Polynesian stock anyway, in which case they literally are islanders by blood.
However, as you correctly point out, it is possible for individuals from other races to have these features too, so as used here, it is really just a description of a look, not a race. And as I say in my introduction, it is a look commonly associated with islanders (whether “Asian” or not), so that would seem to be the most accurate description thereof.
I hope you have time to respond to this soon. 😉
Still, having said that, SEA is a somewhat clever abbreviataion (perhaps even more than Christine herself realised!), as it is an acronym too, spelling out sea. So this term could be associated with both south east Asians and islanders as well – if it is considered to be the intersection thereof, it ends up being quite an accurate term indeed! Still, I’m not sure if I’m comfortable with esoteric “in” phrases.
Oh, and thanks Christine for your eloquent assessment of the problems with Northman’s idea!
if we are going to refer to people of the pacific islands, then islander does seem to be an adequate term for use.
as some people pointed out, regardless of what word is used, i still imagine you fielding a lot of racist comments. this word seems less hurtful than indigenous or primitive, but the nature of our usage of the word will nevertheless prompt people to believe that we are not merely innocently stating why some girl is ‘not our type’ and instead denigrating them by their ethnicities, etc.
islander still has its semantic issues, but it is definitely an improvement over indigenous.
let’s cross our fingers and hope for no NZ readers.
I just went through our stats, and New Zealand is number 30 on our list of visitors! Still, judging from babysnakes comments, it would appear that islander only offends a small subset of the New Zealand population, and even then probably only when applied to Maoris themselves, which obvioulsy wouldn’t be the case with the women featured here.
Okay, I am going to throw this open to our New Zealand readers now: unless you have strong objections, I am going to go with islander.
Speaking of Pacific Islander – Anyone heard of an upcoming new face named Jessi Malay?
Filipino/Spanish/Caucasian
http://www.jessimalay.com/
Hi Mary Grace. Please send any suggestions for models to feature to our “Contact Asian Sirens” link on the left, and keep our threads on topic. Thanks.
@ Christine & Dr Lee — are you not trying to describe Austronesian features?
You could say that, but I think this term is too technical and esoteric for the way we want to use it here.
Given the lack of objections to islander, I’m just about ready to declare this the official term.
I have just started to use islander myself. So I think (hope!) that’s it – islander it is!