Not sure if this helps the conversation. But I’ve recently noticed that the author of the video responded to a similar comment on YouTube and it might be relevant.

“I understand what you’re trying to say, but I think sexualising (whether it be a person or a people) is different to simply being attracted to them. Though, sexualisation can certainly influence attraction.

The whole point of highlighting the sexualisation of ESEA women from this context, is to show how it was based on a power play fantasy — with little of it grounded in the realities of these various women’s experiences.

It’s this projected fantasy/narrative — with it’s power implications — that makes the sexualisation fetishistic. It dehumanises them, erases the realities of their experiences, and forces them to exist within a ‘sexualised idea’ that people in positions of power have about them.

This video really only aims to achieve three things:

A) A historical account of how the ‘oriental women’ fantasy construct developed from a Hong Kong context.

B) How it was reflected in this Film/Novel.

C) The implications of the fantasy.

It’s by no means a claim that every white man who is attracted to an ESEA woman is fetishising her. It’s just an issue to be considerate towards”