The “white, infantile, and slim” aesthetic in Asia encapsulates a monotonous standard of beauty that reflects the constructed expectations of female figures. White represents pale skin, historically symbolizing purity, refinement, and wealth. Infantile signifies youthfulness, vitality, and virginity. Slim highlights a preference for a slender shape, reflecting self-discipline and physical weakness at the same time.
Initially, this aesthetic ideal reflects broader philosophical ideas in traditional thought trends. For example, “slim” indicates the self-control of the subject, a core ideology in Confucianism. On the other hand, “slim” creates a “weak,” feminine figure that fits well within the projected masculine perspective, or rather, male gaze. “White” is commonly associated with porcelain and wealth, which implies good manners and courtesy. “Infantile ” represents filial piety, loyalty, and respect for the elders. Chinese men love to infantilize women to create a masculine hegemony, often with the excuse of it being loving or cute. However, the loss of the feminine voice within this relationship—with a very unequal and unhealthy power dynamic—materializes the woman’s implied value of virginity within the infantile character and further materializes the woman’s virginity as a valuable “traded” object.
Such an aesthetic now becomes a standard of female beauty, while the structural gender biases have alienated what it embodies. A woman whose physique is “white, infantile, and slim” is commonly associated with being popular and desired by males. Females with such appearance are often associated with virginity, ease of manipulation, kindness, or the social expectation of females under the male gaze. It is engraved into the system so deeply that it is visible everywhere— such as the “Otaku crush”.
Pulchra is an eighth-grade student who studies at a local middle school. On her first day of school, she encounters a classmate who compliments her. “Pulchra, you are beautiful! Did you lose weight and get a lighter skin complexion over the summer?”
Now, let us truly understand the essential element within this “compliment.” Was Pulchra complimented, or was the light-skin complexion and skinny figure the true object of the statement?
Some here might jump up and say, “Obviously it was Pulchra [“beautiful” in Latin]! She is beautiful!” Some might say that although beauty is a social construct or something with no pre-social ontology, or pre-social existence, the compliment still grammatically compliments Pulchra instead of anyone else.
What do you think?
