But how does that limit the trope? I don't think it does.

I'll try to think of a shorter version.

edited 2nd Nov '12 9:04:54 AM by KingZeal

Yes, please. Also, the implication with the "long time" business is that she is a prostitute. Not at all the case, here.

The problem is that is a very specific subtrope of Maligned Mixed Marriage. You would almost say "too specific, " if it wasn't the case that it shows up in exactly the same form over and over. He is a mighty whitey, she is a passive East Asian.

This might be a rare case where a well-known example is good name for the trope. Madame Butterfly Relationship, perhaps.

Eddie, with all respect, you're flat out wrong on a couple things.

We've discussed your points earlier in the thread. The Asian Hooker Stereotype is actually part of this trope. The woman being a sex worker is a sister/sub-trope to this, if the woman is a prostitute and the man is White.

Also, this trope has no relation to Maligned Mixed Marriage unless the relationship is frowned upon at some point in the story. In many examples, that will not be the case, or they will be frowned upon for other reasons not directly dealing with race (such as her being a prostitute, being an immigrant, or being underaged). This trope evolved completely differently than other mixed-relationship tropes like Where Da White Women At? or Matzo Fever.

Madame Butterfly Relationship is a pretty good title, though. But I thought we were avoiding Trope Namer Syndrome, because it's not indicative to all the myriad forms this trope can take.

edited 2nd Nov '12 9:51:39 AM by KingZeal

I don't buy that 'hooker' is a necessary part of the trope. It can lay out that way, but it doesn't have to have that element.

The whole trope is mighty whitey in relationship with passive east asian woman. Full stop.

Agreed. Hookers are not required. They're just one of the possible courses of action. It's related but we don't need to make it a part of the trope.

And I meant it about the PC stuff. Knock it off.

edited 2nd Nov '12 12:29:12 PM by shimaspawn

I didn't say "necessary". But an asian woman being a hooker is one of the many, many incarnations of the trope. The trope, put simply, is "any sexual and/or romantic relationship in which the Asian woman has less agency or social power than the man". Being a prostitute is a very common way of placing the woman at a social disadvantage.

Is the "prostitute" bit so important that it needs to be mentioned in the name (and discussed at lenght), instead of a footnote in the discussion? Or are we discussing the description-to-be here? This thread is very chaotic.

Yes, and? That doesn't mean the title needs to reference it. Especially since it's not the majority. The title should apply to the general purpose. We shouldn't be worrying about a single specific case of a rather specific sterotype. You're getting too detailed Zeal. Back your focus out some. Drop the Me Love You Long Time.

The hooker thing should at best be a footnote on an Analysis page. I put up a perfectly serviceable definition. Trope definitions need not detail every possible variation. That's what examples are for.

edited 2nd Nov '12 12:32:07 PM by shimaspawn

Okay, whoa, whoa.

I was even advocating it for those reasons. "Love You Long Time" has grown out of the whole prostitute meaning and become secondhand for Asian Speakee Engrish (which, incidentally, is another way this trope is set up, assuming that the language barrier is a severe handicap for the woman).

That being said, I'll officially bow myself out of this topic.

edited 2nd Nov '12 12:58:38 PM by KingZeal

A big part of it is, and you've done this again, mistaking things that sometimes show up in examples of the trope, as part of the trope. The language thing doesn't always come up. It's not part of the trope. It's a possible way that the trope can occur, but that doesn't mean it's part of the trope.

Then I'm confused.

What is the difference between something being the trope in question and being one possible manifestation of the trope?

Because if we're splitting that hair, in this day and age, the man doesn't even have to be white anymore.

edited 2nd Nov '12 1:14:42 PM by KingZeal

I think the issue is that we shouldn't focus on one manifestation in this case, but capture the general spirit of the trope first.

"Chocolate cake" is the trope. "Chocolate cupcake" is one way the trope manifests. "Dominant white man in a sexual relationship with submissive Asian woman" is the trope. "Dominant white man in a sexual relationship with a submissive Asian female prostitute" is one way it manifests.

If it's not white man/Asian woman it's not this trope.

edited 2nd Nov '12 1:32:02 PM by Madrugada

Yeah, I'm bowing out. I don't know exactly what this trope is supposed to be now.

Thanks for putting up with me thus far, though.

So can the trope just be White Man with Asian woman, and you can talk about the possible variations, and societal implications in the description.

Unless there is significant time spent in the plot building up the relationship this is mainly a visual trope, not a narrative one. i.e. if theres going to be a mixed race relationship its most commonly a white male and an asian female. end of story for trope definition. Anything tacked onto that are variations.

No, the trope is "White man in a sexual relationship with a submissive Asian woman, where he holds some sort of power or is the dominant one." It's not primarily visual, it's largely characterization.

Bump. Does anybody have a description to put up here so that we can get rid of this bad name?

So... I admittedly missed a few... hundred... replies, but going by the trope description, any examples where race is completely incidental still qualifies for the trope. I keep seeing people say that constitutes misuse but there's nothing in the trope description to indicate that.

If that's correct use, then I think the current name is fine. I do, however, think that it's kind of a silly trope then (rather People Sit on Chairs esque, since it overlooks the whole reasoning behind the trope).

If it is about the Mighty Whitey power dynamic, then I think Me Love You Longtime is perfect. I think saying that it makes it all about the Asian Hooker Stereotype is a bit much. Honestly, to me (and this is having seen Full Metal Jacket) it still conveys that the Asian woman has devoted herself to him forever.

The trope is about the power dynamic. Not just about white guys and asian women. That is why the name is bad.

The description cannot be about asian women and white guys because that is People Sit On Chairs.

edited 20th Dec '12 11:34:25 AM by SeptimusHeap

Then the description needs to edited, because it specifically includes cases where race is incidental as a Type 1. There's nothing in the description to indicate that it has to be about power. By the current description, the examples marked "wrong" where race is incidental aren't wrong.

I mean, I agree wholeheartedly that they shouldn't be counted as examples, but under the current description it unambiguously... is. You can't blame people for adding bad examples when the page is telling them to.

edited 20th Dec '12 12:13:55 PM by Larkmarn

Hopping in.

Mind if I write up a sandbox of a revised definition? We don't seem to be getting anywhere.

Yes, please do this. This thread seems to have died.

Here you go, a Sandbox description: Sandbox.Asian Gal With White Guy

Okay, Christmas is over, so can someone look at my Sandbox so this doesn't end up being a unilateral change?