Tuesday

What is Sexual Fetishism? A self analysis....

Visit The Fetish Advocate Official Website




So what is sexual fetishism?

Well, as someone with his own fetish demon, a foot fetish to be exact, i felt inclined to explore the subject.

For starters, i turned to the hive-mind database the free online encyclopedia, wikipedia.org for my first insights:

"...Sexual fetishism is the sexual attraction to material and terrestrial objects while in reality the essence of the object is inanimate and sexless. Body parts may also be the subject of sexual fetishes (also known as partialism) in which the body part preferred by the fetishist takes a sexual precedence over the owner. Sexual fetishism may be regarded as a disorder of sexual preference, or as an enhancing element to a relationship...."

So, that's something. My personal foot fetish is also known as "partialism"? But in my particular case, my "love for women's feet" does not take precedence over the owner? I could see how partialism could be either a blessing or a curse, given how strong the partialism was towards the body part vs. the person as a whole. For example, if I were to derive pleasure from "foot worship" without consideration for my partner's arousal or feelings this would be, in my opinion, dysfunctional.

But on the other hand, if my fetish is stimulated mutually in the fact that both partners are aroused by the act of "foot worship", this then would fall under the umbrella of a fetish which healthily and "enhancing element to a relationship".




The Wikipedia article continues and runs down several prevelant theories about fetishism as they have evolved since the early 19th century:


"...Modern psychology assumes that fetishism either is being conditioned or imprinted or the result of a strong emotional (e.g., traumatic) experience. But also physical factors like brain construction and heredity are considered possible explanations. In the following, the most important theories are presented in chronological order:

In 1887, psychologist Alfred Binet introduced the term fetishism, suspecting that it was the pathological result of associations. Accidentally simultaneous presentation of a sexual stimulus and an inanimate object, thus his argument, led to the object being permanently connected to sexual arousal..."


I think this has a ring of truth to it. However, not all fetishes can be explained by this theory. Or can they? Many femdom websites depict dominant women practicing the art of conditional learning over their male submissives. Using a system of "rewards and punishment" as a method of "imprinting" desired behaviors and arousal reactions in the minds of their "subs". For example, a dominant woman may allow her submissive male the reward of masturbating while kissing her feet after a prolonged period of abstinence and only after performing menial tasks, such as house hold chores, or any other directive she has issued.

The intent, is to imprint the fetish as a way of enhancing the relationship. Now, for the fetishist, this is a desirable situation. But for someone not already inclined to such a fetish this form of conditioning may prove wholly ineffective. On the other hand, for the fetishist and the "top", the end result could prove highly benefecial and rewarding for both parties.




The article continues:

"...About 1900, sexual psychologist Havelock Ellis brought up the revolutionary idea that already in early childhood erotic feelings emerged and that it was the first experience with its own body that determined a child's sexual orientation. Psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing consented to Binet's theory in 1912, recognizing that it predicted the observed wide variety of fetishes but unsure why these particular associations persisted over the whole of a lifetime while other associations changed or faded. In his eyes, the only possible explanation was that fetishists suffered from pathological sexual degeneration and hypersensitivity..."

LOL, the question i have is this, how is it that these jack-legs are qualified to judge people with fetishes in the first place? Do these guys even get laid???? LOL, anyways, once again, I have to concede that I can see where these guys are coming from but ultimately, you can't put people in a box and label them like products. Somethings are best kept mysterious.

The wikipedia article goes on:

"...Sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld followed another line of thought when he proposed his theory of partial attractiveness in 1920. According to his argumentation, sexual attractiveness never originated in a person as a whole but always was the product of the interaction of individual features. He stated that nearly everyone had special interests and thus suffered from a healthy kind of fetishism, while only detaching and overvaluing of a single feature resulted in pathological fetishism. Today, Hirschfeld's theory is often mentioned in the context of gender role specific behavior: females present sexual stimuli by highlighting body parts, clothes or accessories; males react to them...."

This is very interesting, especially the difference in how the genders respond to their own particular fetishes. On a personal note, I often meet women who absolutely hate their own feet or at least say they are too "ticklish" to have anyone kiss or touch their feet. 7 times out of 10 these same women are not very in tune or in touch with their own sexuality. In a sense, they have objectified their own sexuality, much as is prompted for them to do by society and pop culture. For some reason, they don't see how their feet are an extension of their bodies. Much care and attention is given to hair, finger nails, eyes, lips, make up, clothing, etcetera, but when it comes to their feet they are completely clueless. If it can even be imagined, these women have even gone so far as to deny themselves the casual foot massage as a gesture of relaxation.

Now, who doesn't know that a massage is a good thing? The truth is, there is something inherently sexual about feet. The foot fetishist understands this, if even on a subliminal level. Perhaps, the sexual fetishist is hypersensitive to the archaic symbols associated with esoteric human sexuality? Perhaps, these are impressed on what many new age scientists are calling our "genetic memory"?

In one of my favorite scenes from Quentin Tarintino's "Pulp Fiction", the topic of the "foot massage" is discussed and reveals the subtle yet powerful sexual symbolism of the female foot.





So, if we consider the conversation from Pulp Fiction, its easier to see how certain "fetishes" can have a subliminal/sexual significance invoking an equal sexual response in those sensitive enough to appreciate the "fetish object".


But back to my experience with women and their own feet. On the other hand, women who are responsive to my particular foot fetish are open minded about their sexuality and highly interactive in role play.

Also, men too highlight specific body parts. Who hasn't heard of T&A? And how many "upskirt" websites are there? As for the most fetishized article of female clothing, how about her panties and in close second place, the brazier!

So, i thing the gate swings both ways, but popular fetishism is not considered fetish as long as it does not appeal to the vast majority. In essence, what is "abnormal" per se, is only stated as such because it is "above" normal speculation, and what doesn't go over the heads of most people?

The article continues:

"...Havelock Ellis' theory of erotic symbolism, according to which unusual sexual practice symbolically replaced normal sexual intercourse, and his thoughts about erotic thoughts in children, had laid the foundations for psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud. In 1927, Freud stated that fetishism was the result of a psychological trauma. A boy, longing to see his mother's penis, averts his eyes in horror when he discovers that she has none. To overcome the resulting castration anxiety he clings to the fetish as a substitute for the missing genital. Freud never commented on the idea of female fetishists.

In 1951, Donald Winnicott presented his theory of transitional objects and phenomena, according to which childish actions like thumb sucking and objects like cuddly toys are the source of manifold adult behavior, amongst many others fetishism.

The use of a transitional object in infanthood is a healthy experience (Winnicott, 1953). To understand the origin of a fetish object and of fetishism, the infant’s use of the transitional object and of transitional phenomena in general must be studied (Winnicott, 1953).

In his article ‘Transitional objects and phenomena’, Winnicott says about fetish: “Fetish can be described in terms of a persistence of a specific object or type of object dating from infantile experience in the transitional field, linked with the delusion of a maternal phallus” (Winnicott, 1953). In other words, a specific object or type of object, dating from an experience during the period where the mother gradually pulls back as an immediate provider of satisfaction of the child’s desires, persists as a characteristic in adult sexual life.

Before this transitional phase, the child believes that his own wish creates the object of his desire (specifically the qualities of his mother that fulfill his needs), which brings with it a sense of satisfaction. During this phase the child gradually adapts to the (frustrating) realization that the object can not be controlled to serve the childs’ needs.

The transitional object is always the result of a gratifying relationship with the mother, specifically with the maternal body. It stands for the satisfying qualities that the object (the mother) of the first relationship the child has. The childs adapts to the impact of the realization that the mother is not always there to ‘bring the world to him’ through fantasizing about the object of his desire while using an object (a teddybear, a piece of cloth). He creates an illusion of the previous object. In relation to the transitional object the infant passes from (magical) omnipotent control to control by manipulation (involving muscle erotism and co-ordination pleasure).

In opposition to this, the fetish represents the impossibility of pleasure with the body of the mother. The transitional object may eventually develop into a fetish object and so persist as a characteristic of the adult sexual life (Winnicott, 1953). Normally, the child gains from the experience of frustration during the transitional phase. Though, the infant can be disturbed by a close adaptation to need that is continued too long or is not allowed it’s natural decrease.

The fetish describes ‘the object that is employed on account of a delusion of a maternal phallus’, while the transitional object refers to the illusion of a maternal phallus (Winnicott, 1953).

Behaviorism traced fetishism back to classical conditioning and came up with numerous specialized theories. The common theme running through all of them is that sexual stimulus and the fetish object are presented simultaneously causing them to be connected in the learning process. This is similar to Binet's early theory, though it differs in that it specifies association to classical conditioning and leaves out any judgment about pathogeneity. The super stimulus theory stressed that fetishes could be the result of generalization. For example, it may only be shiny skin that arouses a person at first, but in time more common stimuli, such as shiny latex, may have the same effect. The problem with such a theory was that classical conditioning normally needs many repetitions, but this form would require only one. To account for this the preparedness theory was put forward; it stated that reacting to an object with sexual arousal could be the result of an evolutionary process, because such a reaction could prove to be useful for survival. In pointing to how conditioned sexual behavior can persist over time, one may cite how, in 2004, when quails were trained to copulate with a piece of terry cloth, their conditioning was sustained through ongoing repetition.

Because classical conditioning seemed to be unable to explain how the conditioned behavior is kept alive over many years, without any repetition, some behaviorists came up with the theory that fetishism was the result of a special form of conditioning, called imprinting. Such conditioning happens during a specific time in early childhood in which sexual orientation is imprinted into the child's mind and remains there for the rest of his or her life.

Various neurologists pointed out that fetishism could be the result of neuronal cross links between neighboring regions in the human brain. For example, in 2002 Vilaynur S. Ramachandran stated that the region processing sensory input from the feet lies immediately next to the region processing sexual stimulation.

Today, psychodynamics has parted with the idea of proposing one explanation for all fetishes at the same time. Instead, it focuses on one form of fetishism at a time and the patients' individual problems. Over the past decades, various case studies have been published in which fetishism could successfully be linked to emotional problems. Some argue that a lack of parental love leads to a child projecting its affection to inanimate objects, others state in consent with Freud's model of psychosexual development that premature suppression of sexuality could lead to a child getting stuck in a transitory phase.


Modern theory
Most of the sexual orientations popularly called fetishism are regarded as normal variations of human sexuality by psychologists and medical doctors. Even those orientations that are potential forms of fetishism are usually considered unobjectionable as long as all involved persons feel comfortable. Only if the diagnostic criteria presented in detail below are met, the medical diagnosis of fetishism is justified. The leading thought is that a fetishist is ill only because he or she suffers from their addiction, not simply because of the addiction itself.
....."

Will be back with more comments....

No comments: