Talk:Sexual fetishism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Referring to:
Referring to:
As Freud described it in 1887, sexual fetishes in men are the result of childhood trauma regarding castration anxiety.
I believe that Freud did not start writing until 1900 (interpretation of dreams)
[I think he wrote before 1900 -- e.g. with Breuer, Anna O, etc. And his neurological model of the mind. It's true that IOD is the real birth of Psychology, a real watershed. JB].
The first to mention fetishism in a sexual context was Alfred Binet in 1887
BINET: ‘Du Fétichisme dans l’amour’ , Revue philosophique 1887
See also: http://jahsonic.com/AlfredBinet.html
Yours Jan
[edit] Not NPOV
This whole article promotes an attitude of casual tolerance towards fetishism, and the research cited points it to being largely beyond a person's control, and largely harmless. Where is the opposing viewpoint, that fetishism is mentally and morally degrading, and a possible sign of insanity?
[edit] Asian fetish?
Is the Asian fetish a true fetish, and should it be linked to from this article?
Sexual fetishism means arousal caused by an object or a body part. To be turned on by a person possessing certain physical characteristics (say, a tall person or a redhead) would qualify as a sexual fetish. A person who is aroused by people who possess the physical characteristics most commonly occurring in Han Chinese people,for example, would be very similar to someone who is attracted to redheads. Asia is the largest continent in the world. The peoples who live there or are decended from people who are indigenous to the area vary wildly in appearance. The traits possessed by most people from the ethnic group called 'Great Russians" don't look at all like people from the ethnic group commonly called "Dravidians". So, to call it an "Asian Fetish" is in itself ignorant. If you are sexually attracted to Ainu or Tibetans or whatever, then why not show respect to the people you find attractive and refer to them by the name of their cultural affiliation, rather than the generic term "Asian', which doesn't really mean much of anything, given the diversity present on this enormous continent? If you have a fetish for people possessing physical characteristics commonly found in Japanese people, then call it a Japanese fetish, not an Asian fetish. Wandering Star 04:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hmmm...
I think the Jahsonic articles are taken from the Wikipedia. The Jahsonic article used to be a copy of the Wikipedia we see now, that claims Freud created the word 'fetishism', then the Wikipedia article was edited to include more history and to discuss Binet, then the Jahsonic article was corrected to reflect the new changes on the Wikipedia article...
but...it looks like someone has erased the corrected wikipedia article! ... and again is claiming that Freud was the creator of the concept of Fetishsm; but of course he wasn't, he was obsessed with studying anthropology, and that is where he got the term, and he just sexualized it (like he did with everything else he thought about, apparently).
I think this article on the history of the concept of sexual fetishism needs serious revamping, but I don't know enough history myself to do it. It would be wise for whomever makes these articles, to cite sources, that way, if some bozo comes along and erases something that is actually correct, it can be shown by the citations of the sources which version is most likely to be closer to the truth.
The two most striking problems I see with this article on sexual fetishism, aside from it missing a lot of history, are two statements it contains:
"male rats accustomed to having sex in a particular cage will have elevations of "pleasure-inducing chemicals in the brain" simply from being in the particular cage, even if a female or a female scent are not present. Sexual conditioning occurred. It has been hypothesized that human sexuality may similarly be tied to conditioning, and this may explain the phenomenon of sexual fetishism."
Behavioristic theories do not adquately explain fetishism; this is a gross jump from a bit of speculative data to a whole complex phenomena. A rat in a cage does not explain human fetishism, and the example cited above might be something else occuring other than what the observers speculate, for example, the rat might be having memories of sex in that cage, and when memories occur, the brain may produce the same chemicals that were created at the original experience; thus, the rat may not actually be sexually aroused even if it has elevated reproductive system chemicals in its body; it may simply be having a memory. Besides this other hypothesis I've just offered, equally plausible to the one given by the scientists, I really don't think that rats' sex, done for the purpose of reproducing, and humans' sex, done for many different purposes, are the same: We cannot understand humans by watching some rats in a cage.
The Behaviorist who wrote the article, goes on to say:
"This is consistent with the theory that fetishism derives from behavioural imprinting in early childhood, a phenomenon which is not only supported by anecdotal evidence in humans, but can be demonstrated experimentally in animals."
This is yet another monstrous jump from a vague hypothesis to a claim of truth. I am always amazed at what passes as 'scientific data' in the US.
There are other problems with the other articles that this one links from, for example different types of fetishes are called 'types of fetishisms' but that is inaccurate use of the term 'fetishism', which applies to all of its manifestations at once; there are not several different "isms", there is only ONE 'ism' with several different manifestations thereof, thus one should state "different types of fetishes", and if the 'ism' must be used, then the term 'fetish' should be dropped from the descriptive term to avoid redundancy.
Also, writers frequently say "a fetish for ... blah" but that is incorrect because it states in effect, that the fetish exists inside the person before they ever encounter the object, like a kind of disease. It is very clinical terminology, and is archaic, because it implies that there is an illness or disorder, which is often not the case. It would be correct for them to say that "blah is so-and-so's fetish" or "so-and-so has a blah fetish" which clearly show that the fetish is the object rather than saying that the person is the object of the fetish, which really does not make logical sense, yet is often used in clinical terminology and has now, over time, become common language. I wish people would be accurate in their use of words. Maybe someday I will edit the whole bloody mess, but I don't have such luxury of time at the moment...
[edit] Butt Fetishism
Shouldn't there be a butt fetishism article. I certainly know i'm afflicted with it :). could link to that i like big butts song, rap music, black culture and Vida. there shoud deffinetly be an article
[edit] How about red link fetishism?
Quack
[edit] Concepts instead of objects?
What do you call it when you are attracted to a concept instead of an object? For example, canibalism 'fetish' appears to be called 'Vore'. There is also people who like transformation 'fetish' like werewolves. These do not seem to be covered in this article. --ShaunMacPherson 07:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Paraphilia? "...sexual arousal in response to sexual objects or situations...", so I imagine it would cover both fetishism (objects) and concepts. Mdwh 02:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] commonality
what is the ratio behind the common / less common distinction? It seems a bit far-fetched to me to list "funny animal" and "amputee" fetishism as "common" and list "smoking fetishism" as less common. I don't have any statistics myself, but I would like to see some, or any source at all, backing this claim. 213.3.79.254 18:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Also, can we decide whether aquaphilia is common or less common? It's listed as both. (whoops) --62.97.180.80 16:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Don't fear red links
OK, it's cute and all to have all blue links for the different fetishes, but it's actually really annoying to click on one and just be taken to the top of the page.
Let's be honest about which fetishes have their own pages.
[edit] common vs. less common fetishes
The division seems unreliable. Amputee fetishism common? Is it not also the same as Acrotomophilia, which is on the less common list?
- I have to agree. I would be better to cut it from the article and move it to a list of *all* fetishes. Any division will be subjective and incomplete. Besides that there are some uncommon fetishes that are heavily acted on, yet there are common fetishes that are rarely acted on. So you have to decide between having a fetish and acting on a fetish. It just gets messy. If one more person agrees and no one objects then I say we should do it. ~Capi crimm.
[edit] Masochism?
Is masochism strictly a fetish? Whilst it is a paraphilia, there is no attraction towards "a specific inanimate object or part of a person's body", rather it is an attraction towards a concept (ie, pain). The same could be said of Algolagnia (although Pain_fetish redirects there, there is no mention of it being a fetish in the article, only a paraphilia).
This also contradicts the lists at paraphilia, where they are listed separately to fetishes. The list here is growing rather long, so I don't feel it's useful to clutter it up with other types of paraphilia also. Mdwh 02:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Researching Fetishism
On what grounds do we decide what fetishes deserve articles and which do not? Is it based on how many people practice it? How can we verify numbers? Plus how can we possibly research a particular fetish without sinking into original research?
I also disagree with the definition of fetish. I have always considered a fetish a sexual attraction to something which most other people would not be attracted to. A fetish is also something which is not necessary related to sexual activity, such as feet or hair.
Therefore, I would disagree that a sexual attraction to breasts is a fetish, both because it is common and breasts are a secondary sex characteristic. Captain Jackson 03:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Latex/rubber
Aren't latex and rubber the same thing? Why are they listed separately in the list? 'or other garments made out of specific materials such as rubber, fur, spandex, leather, latex or nylon.' 81.101.132.230 01:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fetishes as "normal sexual desire"
Sometimes, whole cultures can develop the fetish to such an extent that it is no longer perceived as a fetish, but merely as a normal sexual desire; for example late-Victorian England's ankle fetish [citation needed], or the modern commonplace fetish for lingerie and women lacking body hair.
This was originally added in by an unregistered user [1], and I have some issues with it:
- Is there any source for "Victorian England's ankle fetish"? The only references I can find online are sites mirroring Wikipedia.
- I don't understand "commonplace fetish for lingerie" - whilst lingerie is viewed as sexual, that's not at all the same thing as having a fetish for it. If someone was turned on by the lingerie alone, this would still be perceived as a fetish, and I do not see evidence that this is commonplace - something which the "whole culture" has.
- Similarly for "women lacking body hair" - that society thinks women should shave their legs is nothing to do with it being a fetish. Having a fetish for specifically hairless women is not a commonplace thing as far as I know.
These last two points make me wonder even more about the claim of "Victorian England's ankle fetish", and whether this is really referring to a fetish.
Having said that, I can kind of see what it's trying to say - a better example would be Breast fetishism, in that a sexual attraction towards breasts is seen not as a fetish, and indeed it's seen as normal. But I'm not convinced of the current examples of ankles, lingerie and lacking body hair. Should we just delete the paragraph, or can it be improved? Mdwh 02:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Talk Vandalism
Is it against wikipedia policy to remove crap like what's currently at the top of the page? DanPMK 10:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Breastfeeding
I know you can't have everything here but what about breastfeeding. --Gbleem 15:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fingernail Fetishism deleted
So, i saw a link on this page go red and it turns out "fingernail fetishism" got deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fingernail_fetish
People, we've got to merge some of these stub articles and flesh them out so they don't get deleted.
And, when people add new fetishes maybe its best to put a paragraph in this article or add to a similar preexisting fetish article. If there's enough text then a new article can be spun off. 141.154.25.115 01:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] People, enough with the red links
Most of the red links that get posted here are already covered by existing articles. Please just fill out the existing articles. Most of the fetish articles are stubs with multiple needs-improvement tags and are in danger of being deleted unless they get some attention.
[edit] circumcision fetish
I am really missing a section on circumcision fetish. I mean, come on, there is an article about "Foreskin fetish". What kind of sick world are we living in? 87.78.158.212 22:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- The link just redirects to this page. If you think it's notable, then write an article on it please. Note that there is an article on Foreskin fetish. Also please be aware of what a fetish actually is - circumcision is an act, not a body part or object, so I'm not sure how a fetish for it makes sense. Therefore I'm reverting. Mdwh 23:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- The article used to exist, but was deleted due to the total absence of reliable sources documenting the phenomenon. Foreskin fetish isn't much better, but for some reason survived the AfD. It might be worth re-nominating it. Jakew 09:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
If I am not mistaken, a foreskin fetish would be perfectly normal. The would be like having a labia fetish. If it is part of the sexual organ, it isn't a fetish.
[edit] lipstick fetishism
Added lipstick fetishism to the list, its common across many cultures and gender identities, there are several online groups for it, notably [[2]] and a variety of commercial porn sites and porn movies catering to it. 83.233.243.186 21:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge of Insertion fantasy into this article
I see that there has been no discussion of this proposed merge at all since the articles were tagged. I don't think the articles should be merged, so if no one objects in the next 7 days I'll remove the merge tags from both articles. Robotman1974 00:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- There were no comments made one way or the other, so I removed the merge tags. Robotman1974 03:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Shirt fetishism
Is that a real thing? I think I have it and it sounds plausible :P --BiT 22:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Conjoined Twin Fetishism
[www.conjoineddreams.net www.conjoineddreams.net] - enough said - I aint no wiki editor so someone else do it please
[edit] Desks? Really?
Is there really such a thing as desk fetishism? It seems as though everything excites someone, but I'm not sure I quite buy that. It sounds like something from Uncyclopedia. There's no source or anything, and nothing on Google. Can we see some evidence, or if it is vandalism (which is highly likely) could we get rid of it?
[edit] Sports fetishism!
Nothing at all on sports fetishism on the page! Sports fetishim is also a pretty spread variety of fetishism, both homosexual and heterosexual! I have just done a minor edit on this in "types of fetishes sections" and I would like to make further contributions on this item. Also, hope for further contributions from other members. Perhaps a separate section on sports fetishism must be done in the article.
[edit] External Links
I have some problems with the external links:
The Catholic Encyclopaedia: fetishism - Despite the claim that it's "quite extensive, well researched, and relatively objective" (isn't that just opinion?), it seems to only show fetishism from the Catholic point of view. I'm not sure how appropriate it is for an encyclopedia that is supposed to be unbiased.
Fetish Links Org - Doesn't offer any more insite into the subject and is just a porn site directory
The Urineists - This is a google group. It seems like advertising to me, and nonetheless should be moved to a page on Wiki exclusively about urine fetish (if there is one).
Fetish Project - I haven't looked into this too much, but from what I've seen, it seems to be an advertisement.
Legs and feet fetish - A blog website.
I'll leave them alone for now, but I'd like to hear what other people think about keeping or removing them. Drexx 22:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Asperger syndrome and sexual fetishism
Is there any documented link between asperger syndrome and sexual fetishism? One symptom of asperger involves fixation on parts of objects, so it seems likely that this could lead to the development of a sexual fetish for a body part for instance.--71.155.170.70 00:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bukkake
I would like to include a link to the Bukkake article under Fluid and excretory.
