Chelsea Emata

Chelsea Emata

Chelsea Emata is an aspiring singer and does some modeling. She is on the new tv show Paradise Hotel 2 on Fox TV. More pics here. (Thanks to Zamscan for this tip!)

(Visited 39 times, 1 visits today)

0 thoughts on “Chelsea Emata”

  1. While for the most part I agree with you re the look of most Filipinas, after a lot of previous discussion on the potentially offensive (if technically accurate) term “primitive”, we decided we should use “indigenous” instead.

  2. Having said that, Chelsea doesn’t look too “indigenous” to me (although she does look a little bit “harsh”), and seems to have a nice, trim body.

  3. “(if technically accurate)” What type of nonsense is that? You claim not to be racist, yet that is the most racist statement out of your mouth, by classifying people of certain nationalities to be more “primitive” than others? You being the so-called moderator always manage to bend the rules in your favor. You need to check yourself.

  4. no, seriously, after looking at her pix set, i think she is a dude. anyway to disproof this? i also saw a wabbit 🙂

  5. lamboap: by “(if technically accurate)” he is actually doubting the correctness of the word primitive, not reinforcing it. i know that the words ‘primitive’ and ‘indigenous’ sound politically incorrect and offensive at first, but indigenous here is meant to indicate the native peoples of the countries, like native americans in the US.

    just as we have native americans, china and other countries also have indigenous peoples, and just as native americans sometimes look different from other ‘nationalities,’ however you choose to use that word, the same can be said of other indigenous peoples in other nations. for instance, many of the people on this website sometimes talk about hmong people. they are a southern chinese ethnic group.

    on the other hand, “indigenous,” in my opinion, is the “lesser of two evils” because while ‘indigenous’ is still rife with its own semantic problems, it is less denigrating than ‘primitive.’

  6. additionally i would like to add that you made a very standard ad hominem argument. while you gave a brief description of what you had an issue with, you did not explain how the (seemingly incorrectly interpreted) phrase was racist but quickly made an attack on the moderator, thereby avoiding actual substance in your argument.

    i am not trying to be critical or a bitch about “just one comment,” but i’m sure that all contributors can agree that after hundreds of comments of debate, these issues have been addressed and our current policies are the best we can do. thus when you suggest that there is racism in our policies, it is not something that any of us take lightly and we appreciate well-framed arguments/suggestions over terse (and often not very helpful) expressions of disdain.

  7. @christine, if you cannot read into “potentially offensive (if technically accurate) ” which implies in the moderator’s opinion that Filipinos are “primitive” as not racist then I don’t know what else to say. I’ve lurked here long enough to know how he regards people from Southeast Asia. The fact that he censors other people’s posts and yet offers his own editorial unabated, always having the last word per se is an abuse of what a moderator responsibilities are. Search for posts from K4K and other users who’ve left this forum are the same reasons for my expressing frustration above.

  8. robin..i do 🙂 hehe. however, your sets of chelsea looks better than her’s. i guess its the lighting or photoshop.

    come on’s NewYear. let there be peace, and boobs and asses. 🙂 these complex conversations make my head hurts :))

  9. lamboap: when I said “primitive” was technically accurate, what I mean is that it is a scientifically accurate way of describing a certain “look”. To a scientist, “primitive” is a desciptive term that isn’t as loaded as it is to many laypeople – I am not saying Filipinas are “primitive” per se (and nor do I think they actually are primitive). Still, even then I am saying that our readers have decided that the use of the term “primitive” is unacceptable, and have decided to use “indigenous” instead. On a personal level though, I agree with Christine: I think “indigenous” is semantically problematic. But we have gone with what readers like you wanted, and yet you are still complaining about it!

  10. As for K4K, he wasn’t complaining about this issue at all – he simply objected to me warning people about borderline comments. It seems you take offense whenever I discuss our editorial policy on potentially offensive terms, which is just ridiculous – after all, I can’t talk about these terms without mentioning them! If you do not agree with our editorial policy on these terms, state your case. But don’t complain about the mere mention of them, even when I’m telling people not to use them!

  11. What’s funny is that I don’t think she looks that indigenous. She has a hot body but overall not hot enough for me to watch some two bit reality show.

    As for primitive, I hated that word. Indigenous may not be accurate but it sounds better and less offensive than other words that people have to describe Asians from that region which I hope I don’t need to mention.

  12. I agree with “Robin Hood.” I have to laugh when I read some of these posts criticizing this beautiful woman. “Ladyboy”…”primitive”? Are you kidding me? You detractors would trip over your tounges if she walked up to you only to ask for directions. I can only imagine what half you Asian beauty “experts” look like…

  13. I got to admit this girl looks a little rough.
    But its just her look. She still has beauty though.

    Either way I think that common sense indicates that the word “Indigenous” has evolved into something more of a derogatory term simply because we use it here to judge people on a scale.

    If this was a scientific forum maybe it would fly but not here.

    They are f*ing hot and 99% of you wouldnt pass up on these girl’s. I know i wouldnt.

    “I prefer the lighter skin girl” or ” I prefer the darker skin chick” would suffice.

    I think at the very least native could be used in place of Indigenous and Primitive.

    Now lets get back to the hot asian girls pls.

  14. not be a jerk, but those who dont understand what is being argued about should stay out. i’ll reply on topic once i get a chance to look at the pictures.


    ps. welcome, migaguiar, any significance to username?

  15. Edit:

    Stop flaming each-other, what the hell!? I just quit a forum I’ve been administrating for years because the members were totally immature. I know most of your personalities (web) pretty well and this topic is sure disappointing me.

    And Robin, to answer your implicit query, yes I do. Hence my lack of activity around here lately.

    To those arguing over terms, stop it. A-S established a long time ago as can be seen in the disclaimer that any derogatory comments are disallowed. Having said that, I don’t think that either primitive nor indigenous are offensive in themselves, but think about it; would you liked to be called such things? And in case you are wondering, YES, many of these girls DO see these articles and I am sure many read the comments too. If you think a girl looks a certain way and you think your words might be offensive, instead of using those words, think of the reasons why she is displeasing and put that. (ie. dark skin, sharp features, and prominent nose vs. indigenous) If you don’t want to go through this effort, then perhaps your post isn’t worth us reading it anyways.

    To those out there who think you are more righteous than all of the rest of us: You might be, but chances are slim.

    So about this girl, as most of you probably could have guess, I don’t really care for her. In fact, I pretty much agree Rayne. Why do so many of these models nowadays try to pose like (pardon the term) sluts when they aren’t in an industry that calls for it? This American society has twisted these girls. It’s so sad.

    If I think of anything else to write, believe me, I’ll post it.

  16. Robin is right: I had to delete lzbone’s last post, and I had to edit SFP2008’s and jd’s as well.

    As for the suggestion to use “native” instead of “indigenous”, I am open to this if our readers agree. But I would have thought native was more offensive than indigenous (though probably less so than primitive). Those of us who use these sorts of terms are just trying to describe a certain look – we do not want to offend anyone, and we are happy to use whatever term is deemed to be non-offensive.

  17. My last post was asking who spf was calling a jackass..what the hell is wrong with that? And why he was dogging on my opinion..stop hating, I am not dogging on anyone’s opinion. I called him a wanker but he attacked me first by calling me a jackass. So why the hell do I get a strike and my last post deleted? Apparently every person featured on here has to be treated as some sort of a goddess and we must refrain from having an opinion. Yo and stop using the word indigenous, now that’s offensive..

  18. He didn’t call you a jackass specifically – he was just making a general statement, which I edited. You on the other hand made a personal attack, which is more serious. I am going to let your last post stand as a demonstration of our moderation policy, but I have already given you enough warnings. Any more of this and you will be banned.

    If you read through the rest of this forum, there are plenty of strong opinions expressed here. If you don’t agree with our guidelines, go here and state your case.

  19. i don’t think it matters what you call anyone… “indigenous”, “native”, “primitive”… someone isn’t going to like it so why don’t you all just stop crying and enjoy looking at the hot girls!! because i know i don’t come on here to debate about whats “PC” or not… I’m here for the girls and the sometimes stimulating conversation…

    @christine: WELL SAID!!!

  20. It was a subtle implication, my first post. I didn’t make a personal attack on her, I believe it was the whole island. Lighten up, relax and take a blunt or 3.

  21. It seems that lamboap is one of those people who actively goes around looking for things to be offended by. Fortunately I am not like this, as I’m sure many people in my position would be deeply offended by lamboap’s claim that I am racist toward southest Asians. Perhaps lamboap should check with my many southeast Asian friends about that first – indeed, the vast majority of my friends are Asian.

  22. Oh please, I don’t actively seek out anything, I have way better things to do. In fact, I rarely speak on this board. I just call it like I see it. Anyone who differs from the moderator’s opinion on these matters is <sarcasm>obviously incorrect</sarcasm> and when someone calls you out on it, you attack rather than re-evaluate what exactly you say in your prior posts.

  23. Well lamboap, pretty much your entire posted input to Asian Sirens has been complaining about this issue. As I said, we have a special thread for this exact topic – if you actually have any constructive suggestions for improving our moderation policy, please post them there. As Christine says above though, you will have to do a whole lot better than just an ad hominem argument – please state your case properly, if you have one.

  24. thanks for the welcome JD.
    My ID is the name of a painter friend of mine.

    I think of these girls like a work of art not so much of sex objects… i kind of made a connection. A corny one but a connection.

  25. “Native” sounds fine to me.

    Yes I see some ladyboy, also a US pornstar look in her. By that I mean a ridiculously exaggerated in-your-face femininity (excessive makeup/hair color/aggressive facial expression) that paradoxically comes off as manly. This is in the same sense that I view chicks such as Pam Anderson & Paris Hilton as “female impersonators”.

    Btw: yes Robin, my Japanese gf is very feminine, in a tasteful understated elegant way. = )

  26. Doc: I don’t mean for you to duplicate other material, but could you remind us briefly what look is being described by “native,” “primitive,” or “indigenous”, all connotations aside. What are the qualities? It almost seems to be simply a sort of coarseness in features, rather than any particular ethnic association. In any case “native” and “indigenous” don’t seem to be what you have in mind. They are typically used when one is contrasting traditional inhabitants of an area to later migrants. It’s very difficult to apply “indigenous” in that sense to China, where the basic civilization has been around more than 4K years. Certainly Hakkas or Jingpos aren’t more “indigenous” than Han folks in that sense. It’s hard to get clear on what’s intended here…

  27. Oh, and by the way, christine, you are wrong about the implications of “(if technically correct)”. When Doc used the phrase “if p” in this parenthetical way he was committing himself to p, not casting doubt on it. If I say about your post that it was “sincere (if misguided)” I am asserting you are misguided. Doc may not have intended to assert this, but lamboap was surely right that he did assert it.

  28. I think urgal makes some valid points. What you say actually points to the fact that “native” and “indigenous” aren’t really accurate ways to describe the concept in question. It refers to certain physical characteristics often described as “primitive” e.g. robust features, dark skin etc. Please note that this is used in a strictly scientific, descriptive sense; it is by no means meant to be derogatory (I sometimes find this look quite sexy, for example). However, given the connotations, it is very understandable that many people find “primitive” highly offensive.

  29. Oh yes, “(if technically accurate)” in this case is not quite the same as “sincere (if misguided)”. I am saying that it may be technically accurate, but don’t use it anyway – “(if technically accurate)” is basically just an aside. But when you say a comment is “sincere (if misguided)”, the emphasis is on the “misguided” part – you are mostly just trying to soften it by saying it is sincere (even if your opinion that it is sincere is genuine).

  30. jd thats not spamming so dont come after me i have the right to post just like everyone else and if i wanted to spam id go somewhere else

  31. Idk guys… Beauty is supposed to be in the eye of the beholder right??? Pinoys and Pinays are a mix of many backgrounds. The indigenous peoples of the Philippines were short and dark and looked rather like the aboriginals of Australia. In other words: not too pretty, for us at least. Mix in with these traits various asian qualities from places like Japan and China along with those of the Spanish and other European countries and what you get? Sometimes the heavier features are prominent while in other cases what is produced is a delicate visage not unlike a cherry blossom. While all are perfect not all are appreciated as so. It all comes down to what floats your particular boat. But to say one is better than the other is all a matter of perspective. Some men like the stronger masculine look while others prefer the more dainty type. That’s just me though… sigh.

  32. @urgal oh shoot, i didn’t see that. now i see what lamboap was trying to say. 🙂 with that clarified…is primitive really technically correct? i’ll have to look into this further. this changes my viewpoint a lot. thank you, that was helpful!!!

  33. Chelsea Emata, not so much my type, at least from these pix. Too much of that generic “exotic to Americans” look. Lookin’ fine in FredF’s link though.

    “primitive”, “indigenous”, even “native” — none of those sound all that great. Outside of the context of this site, the words make me think of some tribal village in the jungle.

    I’d go with tropic or tropical. Sounds sexier, and isn’t that what this site is about? I hear “tropical”, I’m thinking suntanned skin, palm trees and ocean waves.

  34. Primitive was “technically” correct in the colonial world of anthropologists of over 100 years ago. They objectified the “primitive” cultures of the people whom they studied as inferior, using an imperialist viewpoint. It’s no coincidence that the term “gook” for Asians first came into use during that same time, which was after the Spanish-American War, in which Pinays fought the US to get them out, and the US sought to de-humanize them.

  35. Hmmm, “tropical” is an intersting idea! Inaccurate, but given that in the specific case of Asian Sirens the look being referred to happens to always come from tropical regions, it might do.

  36. And luvjgirls is right of course, which is why primitive is considered so offensive by many people. But I use “primitive” in a more modern scientific sense, as a purely descriptive term. It refers to the ancestral condition in evolutionary terms (“primitive”), as opposed to the derived evolutionary condition (“advanced”). This doesn’t just apply to people, but all species; when biologists use these terms in this way, they are not passing any value judgement. But the colonialists surely were passing a value judgement when they used it.

  37. Oh, and one more thing: urgal quoted me as saying “technically correct”, but I actually said “technically accurate”, which is somewhat less loaded. When you say something is correct, you are implying that it is somehow right, which was not my intention. I meant nothing more and nothing less than “accurate”, in a purely semantic sense – everyone agrees that “primitive” is the most accurate term here, but due to the connotations, it can be considered highly offensive.

  38. The more I think about “tropical”, the more I like it – it is definitely non-offensive (I think!), and I feel it does somehow get across the concept in question (even though it isn’t strictly accurate). Does anybody have any objections to using this term in the future? Christine, do you have any thoughts on this?

  39. tropical sounds like a fruit drink. indi is no so bad and it was a suggestion from a guy that knows a little about this topic. how about islander looking?

  40. i have to agree with lawboy. tropical describes weather conditions, not people. if we were to use tropical to describe people, like “she looks tropical,” i think that would just implicitly degrade them to objects and our awkward usage of the term would be easily misunderstood by people who have not read the arduous discussions of the issue.

  41. I’m pleased that much of the competition here doesn’t take her home.
    I will. I’m one of the filipina look fans around here. 🙂
    She’s not spectacular, but pretty good for A-S. I’d d* her (date, of course).

    Regarding the words, I’ll post on the other thread.

  42. She’s not even close to being Ladyboy material in my opinion. That was just plain rubbish. Or garbage. 🙂

  43. Doc: Sorry for misquoting you, but whether you use “correct” or “accurate”, you are still committed to the claim that your term applies truly. If a judge asked you whether a certain statement was correct, and it wasn’t, you wouldn’t evade perjury by saying that it was accurate. Your statement “that term is potentially offensive (if technically accurate)” commits you to the claim that the term applies accurately/truthfully. If you went on to say “but it doesn’t truly apply” you’d be contradicting yourself.

    I just meant to indicate why I thought lamboap was legitimately upset, even if you didn’t mean to convey what you did.
    Hey, this soapbox thing is kind of nice…. 🙂
    @christine: happy to help!

  44. Doc: primitive vs. derived traits. As I understand it, we really have no idea whether the features you describe represent shared evolutionary background. Furthermore that distinction is applied to species differences, not subspecies differences, as here. Finally no cladist uses the term “advanced” to describe derived traits. He/she would end up sounding like a Victorian. I think we should avoid all socio-bio/evo-devo in this discussion and just find a term that conveys the physical sense.

  45. We are pretty much certain that these sorts of physical characteristics are indeed primitive, due to the fact that we evolved in Africa (and such traits are universal there), as well as the fact that it is closest to the ancestral condition. And it can be used in an intra specific context as well, otherwise there would be no way to describe evolution within a species. I should also point out that all humans are one subspecies: genetically we are remarkaby uniform (our nearest living relatives – bonobos and chimps – are actually more genetically diverse).

  46. As for the “technically accurate” stuff, yes that is what I am saying, but if I am correctly quoted in context, then it can be seen that it is a limited aside. In other words, I am stating that primitive is a semantically accurate term, but nothing more, and should not carry any value judgement. When my comments are viewed as they actually are, I do not think lamboap had any justification for being so upset – lamboap has a history of this kind of thing. Still, I probably should have said “semantically accurate” instead, as that would have been a more accurate reflection of my intent.

  47. Doc: Sorry to be direct but, respectfully, your understanding of “primitive” vs. “derived” is wrong, as are the conclusions that you are drawing from it. These terms are used in modern evo bio to describe variation across species,*not* within them. Furthermore they apply to traits as manifested by groups, not individuals. One *could* use them in an intraspecific, individual, evolutionary context in the following very special scenario: you dig up a population of creatures in which one individual has the feature you, in hindsight, know to be derived (one that will subsequently characterize the lineage), and all the rest show the primitive feature. But you cannot use them in the context you are talking about: a population showing the derived features in which you want to identify some individuals as showing the primitive feature. This use of “primitive” is the 19th century notion of “atavism” – throw-back – and no one believes in that.
    As for reasoning about Africa, again respectfully, you are wrong. We do not know the facial form of the sapiens that radiated from Africa. Facial features are known to be strongly, and rapidly, shaped by climate. The climate of Africa was highly varied at the time of the radiation: woodland areas, tropical areas, just as it’s highly varied now. And anyone who claims that an ancestral set of facial features can be deduced by inspecting modern Africans simply doesn’t know modern Africans. Compare Khoisan peoples with Sub-Saharan peoples, with Northern Bantus with Southern Bantus, with Equatorial peoples. There is at least as much variation in facial features as you find across China + SE Asia, and for good reason: Africa is huge, climate varies radically across its expanse, and African populations have undergone evolution since the original radiation, just as other sapiens populations have. No population is held to to exemplify the original condition or appearance of the species.
    We are indeed one species and one subspecies, and the concepts “primitive” and “derived” cannot be applied meaningfully in this context. Your use of the term “primitive” is not accurate, semantically, technically, or in any other sense of the term justifiable by modern evolutionary bio.

  48. This discussion is getting way off-topic, so I will be brief: our use of “primitive” was exactly like your example, as it refers to a suite of features shared by a particular population (in this case Pacific islanders) which are widely considered to be primitive. And all native African peoples do share a broad suite of features (dark skin, robust features) which are widely considered to be primitive as well – the climate there shaped these features in our early evolution just as they do now. But once again, this is just evolutionary bio – it is not a value judgement!

  49. Anyway urgal, as I said this discussion is getting way off-topic, and I think the mere fact that we are discussing this word in this way may lead to the impression of the legitimacy of its use here, which is not an impression I want to convey. We’ve both had our say, so let’s bring a halt to this discussion now.

    If our discussion of this word is offensive to our readers, please let me know and I will take it down.

Leave a Reply