Posted by Snowman on October 17, 2001 at 16:51:49:
In Reply to: pursuant to Snowman's request posted by Sentient on October 11, 2001 at 03:04:02:
: the fetish, whatever its origin and whatever peculiar derivative need sustains it, demonstrates irrefutably an emotional content that seizes the individual. Some clinicians will say this is the mark of sexual immaturity, which is only a definition of a willed normalcy regarding all sexuality, i.e. that it is experienced monogamously, honestly, and totally with the opposite member in a context of love and affection for the "other". Further, according to this reasoning, all "normal" sexual interactions are said to be only those which involve actual sexual penetration of the member into the abyss, with the accompanying secondary content known as foreplay. Even though other specific, non-traditional acts may be present, such as the use of sex toys, the playing out of fantasies, etc. these are regarded as secondary to the primary satisfaction of sexually "being-with" the other "personality" in question. The attempt is to hide from consideration the fundamental narcissism of sexual encounters and rather to portray them as a kind of altruistic encounter, or at least one balanced by narcissism and what might by called "other-motivated" behaviors and intentions. Fetishism represents narcissism, and it is this which is sought to be eliminated from most clinical, psychological theories of human behavior, in the example of the fetish of human sexuality, hence some opposition to Freud's contributions. This is because the fetish represents the very possibility that a human individual attains some kind of sexual gratification, perhaps commensurate with actual sexual encounter,purely through autoerotic means, in the total absence in the fantasy of the "other" being the arousing stimulus. Rather, what is the stimulus for the fetishist is an idea, some part of the body or role that the other fulfills. Hence for the foot-fetishist she becomes "only these feet". Hence, when I am introduced to Stacy I am really being introduced to "Stacy's feet"...the extremity of this fantasy episode and the ultimate seriousness with which he/she sustains it are deeply and psychologically perverse for the adult fetishist. That its peculiarity remains a secret, that it remains his private fantasy episode, that it means so much to him and ONLY him--is essentially its sole relevance. Maybe so. But even without arguing the central point, I would say this would only apply to the small minority that are strict fetishists. I believe that the vast majority of interests expressed here fall into the center of the spectrum, people that are interested in feet, legs, hosiery, etc.; components of a fetish as described, but in a wider context of whatever makes us attracted to, or aroused by someone at all. Example: We may be attracted to someone that has "pretty eyes" and be well within what is consdered the norm in our society. But if we lived in a society where everyone wore sunglasses at all times, except in private or intimate settings, it would be predictable that some percentage of the members of that society would become fixated on seeing women's eyes. An "eye fetish" of sorts. The fetish, as you define, would have to be autoerotic reaction to eyes themselves, separate and apart from the person. Would the same percentage of people be attracted to an extreme close-up of an eye, taken out of the wider context of the face, or the entire woman? By your argument, could "Stacy" become only "Stacy's eyes"? Far fetched? Maybe it's only because none of us are likely to have an eye fetish in our society, where people openly look at each others eyes when communicating. But consider underwear instead of eyes. I believe that vast majority of males would be interested in watching an attractive woman walking through a shopping mall in her underwear, for the standard reasons, but also largely because of social context, and the prohibition of such behavior. I believe that only a relatively small percentage of those men would be aroused by the actual garments themselves, absent the woman and the context of a public setting. My point is that the clinical concept of fetish breaks down when a person has a sexual and emotional relationship that is roughly within the traditional concept of "relationship" but also incorporates arousal by visual or other stimuli that are outside what is considered the norm by the society. The clinical concept of fetish is largely inaccurate unless the object of the fetish is the basis of all physical arousal to the exclusion of all other considerations. I just don't buy it. I believe that what is largely called fetishism in todays society is nothing more than normal human variation reinforced by a scarcity of what ever the object of affection is, a simple response to supply and demand. People don't have a "hair fetish" because you can see all you want, whenever you want to. In those terms, there isn't a need for a clinical definition, because there is no outward behavior beyond what is accepted as the norm. What do think?
Snowman