Personality arguments aside: if we assume that “buying” an asian wife is an uncomfortable stereotype, doesn’t “status or wealth to attract a young attractive western woman” fall into the same category? What’s the difference (except life cost multiplier/divisor) that makes one uncomfortable and the other comfortable?
>What’s the difference (except life cost multiplier/divisor) that makes one uncomfortable and the other comfortable?
Both are uncomfortable stereotypes, but we find the latter more acceptable because Western masculine ideals traditionally interpret the male in that situation as expressing his virility and alpha-dog status (while denigrating the woman as a gold-digger and whore.) Although many people are creeped out by the age differential if it's wide enough, it's expected both that older, powerful men will attract younger women, and that younger women will be attracted to the money and power. It's a sentiment expressed and reinforced throughout Western media and culture.
Meanwhile the Asian version of the stereotype has connotations of the failure of masculinity on the part of the male, as only a step above hiring a prostitute, as well as implications of pedophilia and sex-trafficking.
This implies (well, directly states) that these asian women are only a step above prostitutes, while in fact either both are, or none of them, depending on the perspective. If the male cannot find a match, it is a failure by definition, but I do not see how this fails his masculinity.
Masculinity doesn’t have to be linked with local wealth (pressing/buying someone with money, connections and law doesn’t make one alpha-dog nor a unique problem solver), and I would add wealth actually tends to hide smaller balls, if you excuse a non-native speaker for this idiom. It is strange that traditions link those two, as a person may be just not interested genuinely in spending effort to accumulate so much bigger than usual money to simply get a normal healthy date and life. Masculinity is a thing that allows you to skip these steps altogether, unless women are heavily reprogrammed on money instead and everyone is okay with that.
Basically, it is a failure of a man to find a decent woman, but it is still unclear who is a failure in general.
>This implies (well, directly states) that these asian women are only a step above prostitutes, while in fact either both are, or none of them, depending on the perspective.
I meant to state that the perception is that about Asian women not that I consider it the reality.
> If the male cannot find a match, it is a failure by definition, but I do not see how this fails his masculinity.
A man is often seen as having earned a Western trophy girlfriend, but as having likely bought the Asian counterpart. Why this is, and why the former is more accepted, is probably rooted in negative stereotypes about Asian women formed during America's wars in Asia (specifically Korea and Vietnam) and about the perceived "submissive" nature of Asian women in general.
>Masculinity doesn’t have to be linked with local wealth (pressing/buying someone with money, connections and law doesn’t make one alpha-dog nor a unique problem solver),
It doesn't have to be, but historically, it has been. Trump bragged about being able to "grab'em by the pussy" and it endeared him to (some of) the public, as did Clinton's escapades, as did JFK's. It's been the case since kings had harems.
>and I would add wealth actually tends to hide smaller balls, if you excuse a non-native speaker for this idiom.
Yes, people often say ostentatious displays of wealth are a way to compensate for a man's shortcomings.
>Masculinity is a thing that allows you to skip these steps altogether, unless women are heavily reprogrammed on money instead and everyone is okay with that.
There's masculinity, and there's "masculinity" as expressed by commercial culture (call it corporate masculinity.) The latter is telling men that they need wealth and status items (in other words, to participate in conspicuous consumerism) for a woman to find them attractive.
