TV Tropes Org

Forums

search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [544]  1 ...  5  6  7  8  9
10
11 12 13 14 15 ... 22

Rename: NEW CROWNER (Alt Titles 12-28-12): Asian Gal With White Guy get usage counts

King Zeal: "The basis of this relationship is an asian woman who has a relationship with a white man, and the man is the one with the power."

Lets use this as Laconic.

To shorten it further: "An unequal relationship between an Asian woman and a white man, where the man is the one with the power."

As for subtypes, this trope has two subtypes: The one where the power imbalance is portrayed as cool/romantic/sexy, and the one where the power imbalance is instead seen as a matter of exploitation.

The five traits you mention are not subtypes, independent or otherwise. They are five semi-random traits that are indeed often used to highlight this trope. However, this trope can be played without using even one of those five traits, the film Mammoth is one example of that. And theoretically, a work could use all five traits while still averting this trope completely - although that would probably count as a notable aversion.

Your five traits are independent tropes that in themselves doesn't have to have anything to do with this trope. And they doesn't automatically become this trope i the woman is Asian. Meek usually come with a power dynamic, but it doesn't have to. Ms. Fanservice doesn't have any built-in power dynamic. Social disadvantage plus relationship is so close to the core concept that I don't think this trope can be avoided completely - but it could be discussed or subverted rather than a straight example, depending on how it's played. Hopeless Suitor does come with a power dynamic, bu not necessarily this power dynamic. Same goes for Destructive Romance in general and self-destructive levels of loyalty i particular. These tropes are relevant and should be mentioned, but giving the too much focus will make people mix up the tropes. The are not different ways in which this trope itself is portrayed, but merely tools that can be used to indicate that this trope is at play.

Returning to the two actual subtypes, coolness versus exploitation... While I don't want a list of those either, I do think they could use a little bit more attention. Especially since some works pit these two subtypes against each other as some kind of point-counterpoint. Adding some minor changes to this effect to the description.

Suggested trope description, v5.

An unequal relationship between a white man (who has the power, because he's white and male) and an Asian woman (who lacks power, for the same-but-inverted reasons).

The inequality can surface in ways such as the woman being very meek and desperately loyal to her man, while he treat her as merely a fetish object or toy rather than a complete human being. The Asian girl may be socially disadvantaged (compared to either the white male or a non-asian romantic rival): economically destitute, uneducated or under-aged.

She may be an immigrant who lack a social network or language skills in the new country and who may even risk getting throw out of the country i the man gets tired of her. The man and the woman may disagree on whether the relationship is romantic or purely sexual, and whether it is long term or short term. If so, expect the man to consider it short-term and sexual while she consider it long-term and romantic.

The power imbalance may be portrayed as problematic or unproblematic, sometimes going back and forth between these two perspectives.

In it's classic form, deeply rooted in western fantasies about the mysterious orient, the power imbalance is not only unproblematic, but also cool and romantic, where the White Male Lead is an awesome Mighty Whitey. The Asian Mysterious Waif is often contrasted with the Yellow Peril. Or combined with it, in a Dragon Lady.

When the power imbalance is portrayed as problematic, the work often bring up issues of exploitation, Questionable Consent, outright Domestic Abuse, racism and misogyny. When a character portray a relationship in such a negative light, without the relationship being treated as such by the narrative, it's a Maligned Mixed Marriage that gets special attention in the same way as relationships between white women and black men.

edited 23rd Mar '12 5:52:26 AM by Xzenu

As for subtypes, this trope has two subtypes: The one where the power imbalance is portrayed as cool/romantic/sexy, and the one where the power imbalance is instead seen as a matter of exploitation.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

However, this trope can be played without using even one of those five traits, the film Mammoth is one example of that.

So...Mammoth doesn't have an asian hooker in it?

  • At a club, Leo meets a prostitute named Cookie, and pays her to not have sex with any client that evening. Later on Leo reluctantly has a romantic fling with the girl, but he regrets it afterwards. (From Wikipedia.)

Huh.

And theoretically, a work could use all five traits while still averting this trope completely - although that would probably count as a notable aversion.

No it can't. The five traits are all about a woman who is inherently unequal to her male lover. If that's true, then it's this trope.

Your five traits are independent tropes that in themselves doesn't have to have anything to do with this trope. And they doesn't automatically become this trope i the woman is Asian. Meek usually come with a power dynamic, but it doesn't have to. Ms. Fanservice doesn't have any built-in power dynamic. Social disadvantage plus relationship is so close to the core concept that I don't think this trope can be avoided completely - but it could be discussed or subverted rather than a straight example, depending on how it's played. Hopeless Suitor does come with a power dynamic, bu not necessarily this power dynamic. Same goes for Destructive Romance in general and self-destructive levels of loyalty i particular. These tropes are relevant and should be mentioned, but giving the too much focus will make people mix up the tropes. The are not different ways in which this trope itself is portrayed, but merely tools that can be used to indicate that this trope is at play.

That's not the point. Again, you can have an angry Conspiracy Theorist person and you can have a black man. They are two different separate concepts.

It's when you put the two together that you get an Angry Black Man.

That's what we're dealing with here. It doesn't matter if each element of the trope exists in a vacuum. For example, you can have a babymama (a woman who has a child by a man she is not involved with later), and you can have a Dragon Lady. You put the two together and you have Asian Babymama.

And again, what does that book have to do with this trope?

edited 23rd Mar '12 6:06:38 AM by KingZeal

Angry Black Man is indeed a combination of [Angry Man] and [Black Man]. Just like this trope is a combination of [relationship between white man and Asian woman] and [social inequality and power dynamics between men and women and between westerners and people of third world countries].

An angry black man is likely to have shaved head and a goatee beard. He is also likely to wear a lot of bling-bling and listen to rap music. He is also likely to have an afro haircut and walk around with a closed fist up in the air. Adding a list of such traits to the Angry Black Man trope description would not help that trope at all.

Over to Mammoth...

Cookie is indeed an Asian girl who has a romantic fling with a white man who just happen to be a multi-millionaire, and the whole narrative is about socioeconomic imbalances. This trope is clearly at play, and it is played straight. And yes, she is a sex worker: Asian Hooker Stereotype is also at play, although not played straight.

Yet, none of the five traits you highlight are at play in this movie. She's not meek, and meekness isn't inverted into haughtiness either: She's just a regular person. She's not particularly sexualized - not by the narrative, and not by the guy: He falls in love with her as a person, not as a sex-object. In spite of him being rich and her not being rich, he's the one who is socially disadvantaged, being a fish out of water. Nobody in this story is a Hopeless Suitor... Personally, however, I was sufficiently Wronge Genre Savvy to assume that this was what they was building up for. As for desperate loyalty and tragic love, this movie is full of that when it comes to the love between mothers and their children. As for romantic love, all the women in the movie are far to busy worrying about their kids to really have any energy left for the male Decoy Protagonist.

Hmm, I think I'll convert the above text into a works page for the movie. Lets start with the examples for this trope and Asian Hooker Stereotype.

  • [This Trope]: When Leo met the thai sex-worker Cookie, it confuses him to find out that he's a regular person rather than an Asian Hooker Stereotype. He falls in love with her, having a brief romance where he keeps making all kinds of promises to her. He is completely honest, believing his own unrealistic fantasies about how he's not a John and how he's going to give her a better life and everything. Of course, he ends up realizing that he do have a wife and daughter at home. And thus, he ends up sneaking away in the night, leaving his Asian lover without even saying good-bye.

  • Asian Hooker Stereotype: Averted in a way that make it a major plot point. When Leo meets the thai sex-worker Cookie, he must have expected a hooker stereotype: Finding out that she's just a regular person makes him startled and confused, incapable of knowing how to handle such a situation. He tries to do a Mighty Whitey Knight in Shining Armor routine... Fails miserably, and spend the rest of the story trying to convince himself that he's a heroic lover and that [paying a sex-worker "for not having sex" and then have sex with her after all] does not make him a John. This also fails miserably.

An angry black man is likely to have shaved head and a goatee beard. He is also likely to wear a lot of bling-bling and listen to rap music. He is also likely to have an afro haircut and walk around with a closed fist up in the air. Adding a list of such traits to the Angry Black Man trope description would not help that trope at all.

I have no idea what that has to do with what we're talking about.

Cookie is indeed an Asian girl who has a romantic fling with a white man who just happen to be a multi-millionaire, and the whole narrative is about socioeconomic imbalances. This trope is clearly at play, and it is played straight. And yes, she is a sex worker: Asian Hooker Stereotype is also at play, although not played straight.

What? She's asian and she's a hooker. What part of the trope is not played straight?

Yet, none of the five traits you highlight are at play in this movie. She's not meek, and meekness isn't inverted into haughtiness either: She's just a regular person. She's not particularly sexualized - not by the narrative, and not by the guy: He falls in love with her as a person, not as a sex-object.

Not the point. If she's a hooker, she's automatically a sex object. It doesn't matter what he sees her as. Her character is portrayed as someone who is objectified as a sexual commodity.

In spite of him being rich and her not being rich, he's the one who is socially disadvantaged, being a fish out of water.

That is ridiculous. Most Mighty Whitey stories are also Fish out of Water stories. Him being rich and white and able to pay a hooker not to have sex with anyone (which the article says he did) means he is not by any means at a social disdvantage compared to her. The fact that he was able to pick up and leave and go back to his wife anytime he felt like it means he was not socially disadvantaged.

Nobody in this story is a Hopeless Suitor...

Except the hooker who the white guy leaves to go back to his caucasian wife in the end, right?

[This Trope]: When Leo met the thai sex-worker Cookie, it confuses him to find out that he's a regular person rather than an Asian Hooker Stereotype.

I still don't see where this conclusion is coming from. She's asian and she's a hooker. Where is this not being played straight?

He falls in love with her, having a brief romance where he keeps making all kinds of promises to her. He is completely honest, believing his own unrealistic fantasies about how he's not a John and how he's going to give her a better life and everything. Of course, he ends up realizing that he do have a wife and daughter at home. And thus, he ends up sneaking away in the night, leaving his Asian lover without even saying good-bye.

Then we agree that this part is playing this trope straight as an arrow.

Asian Hooker Stereotype: Averted in a way that make it a major plot point. When Leo meets the thai sex-worker Cookie, he must have expected a hooker stereotype: Finding out that she's just a regular person makes him startled and confused, incapable of knowing how to handle such a situation. He tries to do a Mighty Whitey Knight in Shining Armor routine... Fails miserably, and spend the rest of the story trying to convince himself that he's a heroic lover and that [paying a sex-worker "for not having sex" and then have sex with her after all] does not make him a John. This also fails miserably.

None of that subverts Asian Hooker Stereotype. In fact, most women who fall into the trope are nice, sympathetic prostitutes or "geishas". What definition of the trope are you using?

edited 23rd Mar '12 1:17:23 PM by KingZeal

See the movie. It's good. And no, the movie doesn't portray her as a sex-object. Yes, most movies with sex-worker characters portray these characters as sex objects. Most, but far from all.

No, I don't mean that they portray as a sex object (or fanservice) for the audience's sake.

By "sex object" I mean that she is a commodity or good for sexual favors. That is what a prostitute is, by definition.

edited 23rd Mar '12 2:03:09 PM by KingZeal

Lots of people disagree with that definition. Among them, the author of this particular work.

Lets not get into the whole "is having sex something you do or something you are?" debate. It's huge.

I'm not doing that. I'm eliminating authorial intent entirely.

"The author didn't intend/mean that" is one of the biggest causes of trope misuse or natter on the site.

My point being, she was an asian prostitute who entered a sexual relationship with a rich white man who specifically took pity on her (paid for her not to have sex), enjoyed a romantic relationship with her, and then left her immediately when he wanted to go back to his wife.

I'm sorry, but if that isn't backing up everything I've said throughout this topic, then I don't know what is.

edited 23rd Mar '12 2:16:50 PM by KingZeal

 234 lebrel, Fri, 23rd Mar '12 2:22:32 PM from Basement, Ivory Tower
Tsundere pet.
@Xenzu: I have not seen Mammoth. Nothing you've written in #228 shows how this work is an aversion of Asian Hooker Stereotype. "She's a regular person" isn't enough of an explanation, because that's not the only thing Asian Hooker Stereotype is about.
Calling someone a pedant is an automatic Insult Backfire. Real pedants will be flattered.
@Lebrel 234: "Deconstructed" might be a more fitting label than "notably averted"... But if we are to continue that debate at all, lets take it elsewhere. The film has it's own works page now, comes with a discussion page.

@King Zeal 233: And thus, your point is that the film is a played straight example of this trope. That was my point as well. Good that we agree.

Can we finally agree on version 5, the trope description in post 226?

Without adding or deleting anything else. Arguing forever over issues such as whether a character in a work you haven't seen is sexualized (or "hypersexualized", even) by definition regardless of how she's portrayed in that work... it can go on forever, without really contributing anything.

The last number of versions has been compromises where I have listened as much as I can to you. On the previous version, you accepted my description but wanted to keep arguing over fine print. So, one final revision has been made, including your main points. Can we please both accept this compromise and move on??

While we are at it, lets get the "Playing with" page out of the way as well, avoiding it popping up later.

Suggested "Playing With" page.

This Trope: An unequal relationship between a white man (who has the power, because he's white and male) and an Asian woman (who lacks power, for the same-but-inverted reasons).
  • Played straight: Bod Andersen starts a relationship with Alice Angchuan. There is power imbalance between them because of gender and/or race issues. This affects the premises for the relationship, the relationship itself, or both.
  • Exaggerated: Simply being white and male makes Bob the center of the universe. Either in a benevolent way as the most super-duper totally awesome Mighty Whitey, or in a malicious way as a Complete Monster who just keep abusing the overwhelming power that just keep pouring from his affinity with a certain race and gender.
  • Justified: Socioeconomic structures in the setting being as they are, white men are born to privilege.
  • Inverted: It turns out that the power dynamic goes the other way: Being female and Asian is what makes a character powerful.
    • Note that a mere gender flip (white woman, Asian man) while kepping the power dynamic changes the premise, making the example deconstructed rather than inverted.
  • Subverted: The audience is led to believe that the power dynamic is there, but the truth turns out to be something like...
  • Double Subverted: ... but that's merely what her Manipulative Bastard white husband tricked you to believe.
  • Parodied: Usually subverted in a comedic way, such as a beautiful and rich Asian woman having a fetish for a poor ugly uneducated white male slob.
  • Deconstructed: Examining the complexities of how a power dynamic can affect a relationship.
  • Zig Zagged: The characters are honestly playing at power dynamics for fun because they want to, AND also have an underlying power dynamic that they didn't chose. The line can get quite blurry sometimes...
  • Averted: There is no power dynamic based on race and gender. The man being white and the woman being Asian isn't any major issue in their relationship.
  • Enforced: Two of the characters are a mixed couple... The Executive Meddling are afraid of getting accused of doing the Mighty Whitey routine just because of the race-and-gender constellation, so they require the writers to include some socioeconomic power dynamic stuff in the plot just to show the world that they are most definitely not blind to exploitation and such.
  • Lampshaded: "Of course I have the power: I'm a Mighty Whitey for crying out loud!"
  • Invoked: "Aha, your girlfriend is from an Asian country. Means you have all the power in the relationship and she can't do anything about it if you mistreat her... right?"
  • Defied: Alice and Bob falls in love, with or without race having anything to do with it. Realizing that the gap in socioeconomic status can be a problem, they make sure to make the basis for their relationship s fair and equal as possible.
  • Discussed: Two character debating on whether a certain relationship is this trope or not.
  • Conversed: A character going on about how a mixed marriage in a Show Within a Show should (or shouldn't) have been portrayed this way.
  • Played for Drama: If the white man is good, he have to save her either from various evil Asian men or from social injustice. If the white man is bad, she need to save herself from him... or get help, maybe from a better white man.

 236 lebrel, Fri, 23rd Mar '12 4:34:47 PM from Basement, Ivory Tower
Tsundere pet.
The trope description in #226 doesn't adequately cover the "noble white man saves hapless Asian woman from terrible Asian social conditions and/or terrible Asian men" sort of story. That needs a sentence or two in the second or third paragraph. You kind of have that in paragraph 5, but putting it so late kind of hides it and the wording could be more explicit. Also it probably needs a mention of the phenomenon that if the man is forced to choose between the Asian woman and a white woman, he's likely to choose the latter.

Where Da White Women At? should be an explicit compare-and-contrast, mentioning the different race-gender stereotypes at work (submissive Asian women, predatory Black men).

And it needs at least a sentence or two on the converse (Asian man, white woman); perhaps pointing out that "predatory Asian man" was a popular trope for a while in the Victorian era through the early 20th century, but is now a Discredited Trope as the "gormless Asian nerd" stereotype has displaced the Yellow Peril stereotype about Asian men, such that the predominant current trope is of the Asian man who futilely lusts after white women, is unable to get laid, or is simply asexual.

I also kind of like the list in #209. I don't know if it needs to be laid out in bullet points, but some discussion of the different ways the power imbalance can be motivated is useful to keep people from thinking that, say, women from rich powerful Asian families cannot fall under this trope because they're not at an economic disadvantage.

edited 23rd Mar '12 4:38:33 PM by lebrel

Calling someone a pedant is an automatic Insult Backfire. Real pedants will be flattered.
And thus, your point is that the film is a played straight example of this trope. That was my point as well. Good that we agree.

Not so fast. What do you mean "this" trope (italicized for emphasis)? That seemed a bit like Exact Words to me. If you're suggesting that it also doesn't hit any of the subtypes in my list, especially the hypersexualized and/or objectified asian woman, then no, I don't agree with that.

As for your definition...here's a more concise version, in my opinion that sacrifices little of the meaning.
An unequal relationship between a white man and an Asian woman where the white male is the dominant, advantaged, or more powerful party. The Asian girl may be socially disadvantaged: economically destitute, uneducated or under-aged. She may be an immigrant who lacks a social network or language skills and is at risk of being deported. There may be a misunderstanding between the two on whether the relationship is short-term or long-term; in the end, whichever he decides will determine the direction of the story. Sometimes the asian girl is meek, or otherwise fits the "China Doll" stereotype. Other times, she is hypersexualized and/or played as an object for fetish (for example, Dragon Lady or Asian Hooker Stereotype). She is usually the Hopeless Suitor, in comparison to a non-Asian (usually white) rival. The asian girl is completely loyal to the white male, either to self-destructive levels or to an extent beyond what her rival has displayed.

This is very popular in a Mighty Whitey or Fish out of Water story. As problems flare, the relationship could potentially be downright abusive for either party. If it's frowned upon by others, it may be a Maligned Mixed Marriage.

As with Where Da White Women At?, this trope can be played for Race Fetish on either side, and need not be inherently negative.


That's the best compromise I can see without a list. And I still think a list would make it better.

edited 24th Mar '12 4:18:24 AM by KingZeal

@lebrel: Good points. Now making a new version to include them.

@King Zeal: A decent version, but loses too much of my points as well as of lebrel's points. So, I'll start with your version, making some additions & adjustments from there. Version 7 incoming, counting your post 237 as version 6.

Suggested trope description, v7.

An unequal relationship where the powerful one is a white man and the one he has power over is an Asian woman. She may be socially disadvantaged: economically destitute, uneducated or under-aged. She may be an immigrant who lacks a social network or language skills and is at risk of being deported. There may be a misunderstanding or dishonesty between the two on whether the relationship is short-term or long-term. Sometimes the ┴sian girl is meek, or otherwise fits the "China Doll" stereotype. Other times, she is hypersexualized and/or played as an object for fetish (for example, Dragon Lady or Asian Hooker Stereotype). She is likely to be the Hopeless Suitor if a white rival is available, and is also likely to be completely loyal to the white male, either to self-destructive levels or to an extent beyond what her rival has displayed.

Popular in the Fish out of Water kind of story. As problems flare, the relationship could potentially be downright abusive for either party. If the relationship is unfairly frowned upon by others, it's a Maligned Mixed Marriage.

When the manly white dominance is cool and the power imbalance is romantic, the woman may become a Damsel in Distress who the White Male Lead has to save. Sometimes from social injustice in general, but more often from abusive and predatory Asian men. Those men may also be a threat to white women, a now discredited theme that was common in the 20:th century Victorian literature. When the white man is the abusive or exploitative one, she sometimes still get saved - by another white man.

Compare and contrast with Where Da White Women At?. Both tropes can be played for Race Fetish on either side. They need not be inherently racist or otherwise negative, in spite of having a long history of racism and misogyny, laden with stereotypes of Asians being meek/submissive and black men being aggressive/predatory.

 239 lebrel, Wed, 28th Mar '12 3:19:25 PM from Basement, Ivory Tower
Tsundere pet.
I don't think Hopeless Suitor works, that's for when the object of the characters affections doesn't have any interest in them at all. I don't think we actually have a trope that covers the "gets to be with the love interest for a while, but is ultimately rejected in favor of another character" situation.
Calling someone a pedant is an automatic Insult Backfire. Real pedants will be flattered.
  • I took out "at risk of being deported" on purpose because it's unnecessary.
  • The third paragraph doesn't add anything. It uses Property of Love wrong, and some of the point raised (such as if she's saved by an abusive white man by another white man) are just redundant. We can cut out on things that aren't important.
  • In the last paragraph, we don't need to mention that the trope is negative. Tropes Are Tools and it isn't up to us to talk about whether or not it's negative or used to be negative. Only that these are stereotypes.

@lebrel: Good point. We don't seem to have that trope yet. And we should have it. So, I'll put the Dolly Parton song "Jolene" on repeat and get to work. :-)

Edit: Loser Lover is now at YKTTW.

edited 7th Apr '12 4:03:26 PM by Xzenu


Thumped for switching the discussion from the topic to a person. Doesn't take many of this kind of thump to bring a suspension. Stay on the topic, not the people in the discussion.

 243 shimaspawn, Sun, 8th Apr '12 8:24:49 AM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
Try that again without all the personal attacks. If you need to attack other tropers to make your points, they aren't good points.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
@shimaspawn: Well, I can agree with that. As long as we use "aren't good" in the sense "not part of a discussion we should be having".

Fact: King Zeal did not take out "at risk of being deported". It was included in his version six, and is still present in the current edit of it. It's inclusion in version seven was copypasted from there. The question of whether or not him taking it our (which he didn't do) was "on purpose" is a meta-debate with no relevance whatsoever on the actual trope.

Revised Analysis: It was stupid of me to allow this to get on my nerves. Another meta-debate is exactly what this thread doesn't need. Sorry.

@King Zeal: The "at risk of being deported" part is not redundant, since some stories has it as the driving force of the power dynamic between the characters. I think Law & Order: SVU alone has played this particular card in at least ten different episodes. I'll get back to your other two bullet-points some other day.

Well, partially my mistake. In my previous version, I meant to change "and at risk to being deported" to "or she may be an immigrant at risk of being deported".

The problem was the wording; it made it seem like it was a necessary corollary to her being an immigrant. However, it works fine when made its own separate criteria.

Yeah, it's separate criteria. While they often go together, "or" is more accurate than "and": "She may be an immigrant who lacks a social network, lacks language skills, or is at risk of being deported."

Regarding Property of Love, that trope is all about defining power imbalances as romantic. It is not at all limited to literal ownership, aka slavery. Yes, it do include a sense of ownership being expressed. The question is whether or not we need to squeeze that aspect of the trope into the potholing. The current version is sufficiently accurate. I could dedicate a sentence or paragraph to how race and gender issues can interact between the two tropes, but I think that would be needlessly verbose.

Regarding her being saved by another white man, well... While it's a plot twist I have seen many times, I can agree that it is redundant to bring up. However, the first part of the sentence is important, and it just hangs in the air without a second part. So that second part about being saved by another white man needs to be replaced rather than removed. I have now reworked the sentence to be as follows: "When the white man is the abusive or exploitative one, he may still delude himself into thinking that he's righteously shouldering the White Man's Burden."

Regarding the last paragraph, it does not say that the trope itself is bad. On the contrary, it claims and underscores the opposite. The power imbalance that this trope is about has a history of racism and misogyny - in fiction as well as in real life. This aspect is highly relevant to how the trope is used in contemporary fiction, since the authors have to position their work regarding these issues and are likely to discuss them in the work in one way or another. The problem in the current version is that we bring up this issue so briefly, and that we do it in the fourth paragraph rather than in the first. However, I can accept keeping it to the fourth paragraph.

Regarding Property of Love, that trope is all about defining power imbalances as romantic. It is not at all limited to literal ownership, aka slavery. Yes, it do include a sense of ownership being expressed. The question is whether or not we need to squeeze that aspect of the trope into the potholing. The current version is sufficiently accurate. I could dedicate a sentence or paragraph to how race and gender issues can interact between the two tropes, but I think that would be needlessly verbose.

Property of Love has nothing to do with that, though. Property of Love is about two consenting adults who find eroticism in owning or being owned by another person. This trope is about a power imbalance which is inherent to the relationship itself. The two don't overlap very often.

Regarding her being saved by another white man, well... While it's a plot twist I have seen many times, I can agree that it is redundant to bring up. However, the first part of the sentence is important, and it just hangs in the air without a second part. So that second part about being saved by another white man needs to be replaced rather than removed. I have now reworked the sentence to be as follows: "When the white man is the abusive or exploitative one, he may still delude himself into thinking that he's righteously shouldering the White Man's Burden."

You're still being far too specific about it. The problem with the way you're wording things is that it brings up specific scenarios which may or may not have anything to do with the trope. As is going on in the Asian Hooker Stereotype TRS thread right now, it just makes things too confusing.

Regarding the last paragraph, it does not say that the trope itself is bad. On the contrary, it claims and underscores the opposite. The power imbalance that this trope is about has a history of racism and misogyny - in fiction as well as in real life. This aspect is highly relevant to how the trope is used in contemporary fiction, since the authors have to position their work regarding these issues and are likely to discuss them in the work in one way or another.

But they don't have to. No one has to discuss this trope or even care about it if they don't have to. It's not the description's job to tell people how to feel about the trope. That would work fine (in my opinion) in a trope like Netorare Genre, where the entire point of the trope is to invoke specific feelings from the audience. But this trope is about a romantic relationship which some people may find romantic and others may find racist. We don't need to guide their hand or warn them as such.

Bump.

For what it's worth, I am more in line with King Zeal's points, minus the last paragraph of the proposed description re: its implications. I agree that readers should not have to be told how to feel about a trope, but on the other hand I think some of the xenophobic/racist/misogynistic undertones are worthy of mention, especially since the earliest examples tend to be rooted in those very things. Even more so if the trope ends up reverting to the original name—a title which is inherently offensive combined with a very neutral description don't quite work to me.

@King Zeal:

Considering that the trope is about the man having the power... Mentioning that he might abuse this power is not being "far too specific" at all.

As for property of love, it has fours subtypes. ONE of these "is about two consenting adults who find eroticism in owning or being owned by another person". Two OTHER subtypes "is about a power imbalance which is inherent to the relationship itself". While sexy, it is often also deeply problematic for the characters.

As for the last paragraph, it was never intended "to tell people how to feel about the trope". More on that in my reply to...

@Mikebissle:

Hi and thanks for the input as well as the bump. Lets finish this trope so we ca be done with it at last. :-)

Yes and yes: xenophobic/racist/misogynistic structures and undertones should be mentioned, but in a good way. This is regardless of trope title. I agree with you that the historical roots of the trope shou÷ld not be ignored, but even more importantly...

The core description of this trope is: "An unequal relationship where the powerful one is a white man and the one he has power over is an Asian woman."

This is really a mater of racism and misogyny, but not necessarily in the form of any character (much less author!) being racist or misogynistic. It may just as well be a matter of portraying racist and misogynistic social structures!

And of course, yes: If the trope actually do get a racist and misogynistic title (in spite of TV Tropes working hard at moving AWAY from using such titles, making cleanup efforts to remove them), then it becomes even more important that we make crystal cleat that the racism and misogyny is simply something that we portray here, not something we hold up as our ideal for how things ought to be.

Alternative Titles: Me Love You Long Time
28th Dec '12 10:43:47 AM
Vote up names you like, vote down names you don't. Whether or not the title will actually be changed is determined with a different kind of crowner (the Single Proposition crowner). This one just collects and ranks alternative titles.
At issue:
This trope is about unequal relationships between Asian women and white men, in which the latter hold the power. It is NOT about:
  • Prostitution (Ok, that is sometimes part of it but not enough to deserve mentioning in the name)
  • Any relationships between Asians and white men. Thus, please do not add politically correct options to the crowner
Total posts: 544
 1 ...  5  6  7  8  9
10
11 12 13 14 15 ... 22


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy