Talk:Sexual fetishism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sexual fetishism article.
Article policies
Sexology and sexuality
Sexuality Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments


Contents

[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] 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

I am surprised there isn't one for the buttocks. Maybe it got deleted? Also, what is the determination of what articles make it into the fetishism template? Not all fetish articles are in it (Fat, e.g.) 72.226.64.201 (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That would likely be covered by partialism, which refers to sexual interests in specific parts of the body. I am not aware of any substantial literature that names specific paraphilias or fetishes according to body parts themselves.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[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)
See Binet's idea mentioned in the "types" section of the article.194.112.32.101 22:46, 4 November 2007 (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)

What is the fetish for statistical frequency?.. I think this should be added to the list, if we can find some sources.194.112.32.101 22:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[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.
I'm very sceptical about this Kinsey-esque "commonality" approach. The article needs more theoretical discussion rather than compiling lists ad infinitum.194.112.32.101 12:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[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)

Read some books and present the results.. the answers are in the books. 194.112.32.101 23:02, 4 November 2007 (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)

The claims that whole societies have fetishes, usually appears in the context of cultural criticism, thus the instructions for societies to enter group psychoanalysis for 'sexual disorders' are self evidently non-starters.194.112.32.101 13:10, 6 November 2007 (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.
Whether there are cases of these fetishes in clinical literature is significant to the article, just like the idea that *any* object or phenomena (whether mental or material) may be subject to fetishistic desire. Fetishism is not more true, or less true according to the potency of a sexual organ or case frequency - it is an axiom, which describes the sexual fixation or obsession in a single thing (whatever it is) at the expense of other things. 194.112.32.101 15:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[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)

Could someone be a little more specific as to what this is exactly?

No, do your own research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.112.32.101 (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conjoined Twin Fetishism

[www.conjoineddreams.net www.conjoineddreams.net] - enough said - I aint no wiki editor so someone else do it please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.94.217 (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with you?... visit the help page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.112.32.101 (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.13.158 (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkrasn (talk • contribs) 23:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[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)

I read in the blog of a spandex fetishist that he had tested rather towards the autistic side of the scale, though he wasn't in the least bit. It lead him to suspect the same possible link, as he had heard that persons with autism feel comforted by confining and restrictive clothing, perhaps because it feels like they're being held/protected. I have also heard that the current autism epidemic may be the cause of the hyper-toxicity of our modern world. If that were the case, then the modern explosion of latex, spandex, etc. fetishes could be a symptom of of persons who were poisoned in the same way that the autist is; but not enough to actually develope the disease. Just some thoughts. Finnbjorn 11:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What? What are you on about you think Asperger Syndrome is bad? Toxic? AS has been traced way back to Newtons time and possibly even older than that, Aristotle for example. Read up on AS, it's a featureed article. And taking references from blogs? They're not reliable! I have AS and I'm offended by the way you think. In answer to the question there is none I can find that are reliable. There is no such as an "autism epidemic" - the autism spectrum is huge. The general population are on it and it's nothing neurological just behavioural - that's why it's called a syndrome. Don't treat austistic people like crap or some kind of animal. Oh and by the way we were not "poisened". We were born autistic that is we litrally think the same way when tackling problems. Do some research before you wrap us around in your blatant biased opinions. LOTRrules (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bukkake

I would like to include a link to the Bukkake article under Fluid and excretory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MCWicoff (talk • contribs) 19:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.28.184 (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I disagree that it's POV; is there anyone who agrees with the above comment? If not, we can probably remove the tag.--70.17.209.58 22:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Not all articles require opposing viewpoints. This is a descriptive article defining the facets of a fairly broad topic. The fact that it lacks the view that it's mentally and morally degrading does not make it POV or pro-fetish. This article is highly detached, scientific, and well-cited (with the exception of Sexual fetishism#Types of fetishes, which should probably just hyperlink to a list). Furthermore,sexual fetishism#Medical aspects addresses disruptive negativity quite tastefully. Moral concerns, need they be addressed, should probably be placed on more specific articles dealing a specific sexual fetish (if such concerns are raised by notable entities and can be cited). Tagging this article was premature. -Etafly 06:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fetishism

I find fetishism so very interesting because I have none that I'm aware of. I'm always trying to tune-in to the latest perversion that whatever group is deciding to tout. When I hear about 'pony-play' or 'furverts' or other types of groups appearing here and there - people 'coming out' about what amounts to a bazaar sexual addiction - I'm very interested.

For example, I love hearing about how the people who feel most comfortable living their lives dressed in furry animal costumes have their annual conventions crashed by the people who wear furry animal costumes for sexual pleasure. I love when I hear about how the former gets all upset with the latter because they can't figure out exactly which furry creature is getting 'too into' the activities and which ones are living out a Disney-esque non-sexual fantasy.

That's the sort of information I was expecting to find here in the sexual fetishism section. I agree with everyone else's comments above about the problems with this site. I want to read about what's really out there. Who cares if it has a Latin term assigned? None of that matters to me.

Calling something "sexual fetishism" is redundant. Fetishism is sexual already - it's part of the definition. Here's what's missing: I think this section should be newly titled "Fetishistic Objectification" because that's what I truly feel is being written about here. That is, and I'm making this up, when an individual projects an abstract notion, feeling or ideal onto a form in order to better contrive a reenactment of a significant personally historical experience.

What's happening now is bigger than just fixing psycho-problems with analysis or pills or definitions and diagnosis. Maybe, for the most part, nothing is broken - maybe this is how we are. Perhaps those who explore their deepest desires are actually healthier than those of us who don't 'get it'.

I'm just trying to convey a sense of what I'm interested in finding here. It's what I was hoping to find but, alas, did not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry.wriothesely (talk • contribs) 06:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  • What you're looking for is Furry fandom#Sex and furry fandom. Also, the term 'sexual fetishism' is most certainly not redundant, as the actual meaning of the word 'fetish' does not explicitly have sexual connotations. It has now come into broader use as a sort of euphemism (an object for worship), and is used, albeit incorrectly, interchangeably with the term 'sexual fetishism.' See fetishism for further detail. Cheers. -Etafly 21:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dental braces

There used to be a reference in the dental braces page to braces being a fetish for some people. However, this reference, as well as the separate article on fetishes (as well as it being listed in types of fetishes) has been removed. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.86.240.183 (talk • contribs) at 17:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Desk Fetish

Desk Fetishes are actually quite common, so my edits are valid. I will provide sources at some point that confirm this. In the meantime, please do not remove my legitimate edits!--131.111.202.17 11:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Types of fetishes

Is it possible to truncate or even eliminate this section from the article, and instead, link to List of fetishes? This article has a great deal of potential, but it seems as though this section will never be rid of OR, and as a result, drags down the rest of the article. The best way to go would be to keep the section as brief as possible, link to the specific article, and merge the existing content from that section (image included) into List of fetishes. Thoughts? -Etafly 17:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defloration/Virgin Fetish

Umm . . . anybody see any sources on this one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.223.161 (talk • contribs) at 08:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

/Archive 1

[edit] Is a fixation on a sexual organ a "fetish"?

If one has a sexual fixation on a body part that is sexual in nature already, is it strictly true to describe that as a fetish?

I mean, something like foot fetishism I can understand, but the article mentions foreskin fetishism and breast fetishism - so is there such a thing as vagina fetishism, or nipple fetishism? Where do you draw the line? 217.155.20.163 21:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Fetishism refers to an obsession with a single thing. In the case of a vagina - the owner would be of secondary concern to the fetishist (if at all). Normative sexuality requires two relatively whole people to be conscious of each others consciousness. 194.112.32.101 20:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delicious flat chest

Delicious flat chest is delicious, you must eat it Saint James Paul. I understand it isn't your particular fetish, but it is for many lolicon gentlemen. Please don't treat others' tastes as vandalism.

Wouldn't "delicious" flat chest taste like sweat and skin, no different from your arm? --12.218.150.28 02:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced articles on fetishes

We have too many articles on fetishes that have few or no sources. (For example, smoking fetishism and breast fetishism). The sources in some articles don't even mention the subject fetish. Is this topic covered by a project? We need to either improve the sourcing or cut a lot of text. Maybe we shold make a list of fetishes and include the minor ones there rather than giving them unsourced stubs. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I'd go along with the idea of the list being better than a lot of insignificant stubs. Valrith 15:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with the 'Types' section of the article

Here is a list of a few problems I noticed while reading the 'Types' section of the article, along with a simple solution.

1) Most seriously: commonality and cause of a fetish is very difficult to determine. In my opinion, Cause probably cannot be determined in a general sense. This opinion is reinforced by the earlier part of the article, which states that the cause of fetishism is still largely unknown and likely veries widely from cases to case; therefore: the statement: 'Because clothing and adornment have such frequent links with sexual display, humans may develop clothing fetishes.' is unverifiable opinion and must be rephrased or removed. If it was the case, then we should expect to see more prevelent fetishs for tuxedos, and wedding and formal dresses; but I cannot recall having ever heard of a wedding dress fetish (which is not to say it couldn't exist; but that: if it does, then it is not pervasive, suggesting that the role clothing plays in the mating ritual has little to do with weather or how it becomes the object of a fetish). My own fetishism began before I was sexaul with a fixation on jackets, particularly shiny ones, and the shiny materials they are made of, such as leather, nylon, rubber and plastic: clearly clothes that have nothing to do with the 'conventional' Western sexual display (I cannot speak for other cultures in general, I can't call to mind any that include rain slickers at the alter, rubber overalls at the ball, etc.).

Commonality is also nearly impossible to determine; but could be guessed at based on the results of extensive sociological research; however, no such research is sited for the statement that: 'Shoes —often in combination with a desire for feet— are among the top of the list of commonly fetishized items.'; and therefore, this statement is unverifiable opinion and must be rephrased or removed. My own experiance tells me that leather is the most commonly fetishized item, followed by rubber; and then, I read an article on wikipedia that said that a study conducted in Eastern Europe showed down jackets at number three (not suprising for a study done in a part of the world known for it's harsh winters); but, I am not touting this experiance as fact: the first two on my list are unverifiable opinion, while the third is unverified hersay of the debatable results of a narrow study. If we allow this kind of information in an encyclopedia, then we'll be thrown back to Plinys' Natural History and end up with articles on remote tribes of dog-headed people that bark to speak.

2) On a point of technicality: the 'fetishs' listed in the Medical and Disablility, and Fluid and Excretory sub-sections of this section are not, in fact, fetishs; but rather: paraphilias; and therefore, they should be removed from this article entirely and placed instead under the article on general paraphilia. To save us all time I will point out that the article on paraphilia already has a much more detailed listing of these behavior, with links to more information. On a point of interest: fetishism is itself a specific kind of paraphilia.

3) On a point of clarity: putting leather and latex together is like putting peas and carrots together: sure, to most people it may seem like a no-brainer; but not everybody who likes peas happens to like carrots, and vice-versa; and furthermore, adding plastic to mix is like adding garlic to your peas and carrots: no chef in thier right mind would do so unless they were dead certain everyone coming to the table liked garlic. More importantly peas, carrots and garlic are intinsicly dissimilar; so naturally, they are classified as three entirely differant things; and so it is with leather, latex and plastic. I myself identify as having a leather fetish, a latex fetish and a plastic fetish; but I would never identify as having a leather-latex-plastic fetish; especailly as I prefer to have one without the other two in any given instance.

I often see these fetishs overlapping in the fetish world, but I also know for a fact that they exist in thier respective individualized forms. I, therefore, find it wholly unrealistic to group them together. You could propose that they were related; but proving that point would take decades of difficult research that I suspect would end in failure; because, well mostly: I feel that the majority of the leather world would be suprised to discover that the plastic world existed; and I know myself of many plastic fetishists who have no patients for people interested in anything else, including latex (I put up one picture of myself covered in plastic wearing a jacket and without so much as a how-do-you-do I'm kicked out of the group . . . . (is this an example of exhibitionism(a paraphilia)?)).

I, therefore, propose that (1) unverifiable statements and statements of opinion be elliminated or rephrased in a more nutral or subjective tone (except that subjective tones are also inappropriate in an encyclopedia); (2) other, non-fetish, paraphilias be removed from the section; and (3) that a more critical and differentiating eye be applied to the entire classification scheme.

Finnbjorn 10:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC) edited by Finnbjorn 21:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


The fetishes are distinguished from other types of paraphillia by the obsession for a single thing, or the reduction of a multi faceted phenomena into a single object. Fetishism also means the belief that a thing possesses intrinsic erotic qualities, while the object in reality has no such essence in itself. The types are incidental, unless one is treating a person for an obsession which then requires investigation into the specifics, or one is producing a pool of statistical data.194.112.32.101 20:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anaclitism?

What is Anaclitism? Why is it listed in the "Paraphilias and Fetishes" box down below if it just redirects to Sexual fetishism? --24.46.164.83 03:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably redirected for being fundamentally unsourced. If someone wanted to add citations to the last version, perhaps it could be restored as a separate article. / edg ☺ ★ 23:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, the original version of that article contained a link, albeit a non-scholarly one: http://www.odd-sex.com/anaclitism.htm It may have been deleted because of it's uncooperative redirect behavior. The term seems to have a more common, non-sexual definition, and Google Scholar comes up with little on the paraphilia, but it is defined briefly here: http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:qZ-7Vnu7g5wJ:www.student.ru.nl/d.f.janssen/GUS/proto2003.pdf+Anaclitism+sexual#52 / edg ☺ ★ 23:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Types, categories, fetishes, partialisms, neologisms and unsourced articles.

Have been re-categorized as such. See the template at the foot of the Sexual fetishism page, or go directly to the template here: Template:Sex_fetish. 194.112.32.101 17:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Quote: "A public display of fetishistic art in California." The art despited is related to Bondage. There is no proof whatsoever that Bondage is connected to fetishism per se. It can be a fetish, very much like every thing else, but doesn't has to be. The interpretation that bondage art is automatically sexual fetishism is POV. I'll remove the image. --Nemissimo (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The image in question: Image:100 1895.JPG
Using this image may be somewhat misleading because it does not clearly depict fetishism, except perhaps in the colloquial usage of the term to mean "kinky sexual interests". Also, because of the distance at which this photo is taken, it is not easy to figure out what those things in the storefront window are without expanding the image to full resolution. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Colour

"White skin fetish" - I think this should be added to the list of fetishes but I cannot find the name of it anywhere does it exist? LOTRrules 14:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What type of white skin?194.112.32.101 22:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
You know how people prefer lighter skin over darker skin? Like that. I'm not a racist but am underlining the truth of society - some people prefer dark skin others whiter skin but the most common seems to be white skin in Europeon contries where people of different ethnicities favour "white" over "their own" the same if a person moves to country lacking "white demographics" excerpt vice versa...

LOTRrules (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There is currently an article dealing with Racial fetishism, but in terms of a fetish for skin tone - it seems familiar in that I recall a report on Channel4 News about the higher status (or regard) awarded to lighter skinned women in Africa among their peers and families. This could essentially be the same as a racial fetish, and was probably not sexually motivated, but I cannot doubt that the possibilities may run contrary to the essentials or primary appearances. Redblueball (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, how come a link isn't on this page? Odd, I'll put one if there isn't LOTRrules (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
no problem.. it's already on the fetish template. Redblueball (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pale skin fetish.

I seen here a person with a white skin fetish. I'm interested in learning about pale skin fetish. I'm not talking about white skin in a racial way but as in little to no pigment. I find pale people to be highly beautiful and erotic and was wondering if there was a name for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Necromancer70 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You might want to ask about this at Wikipedia:Reference desk. This talk page is to discuss editing this article. Also, while there may be a word for this sexual preference, it may not be considered a fetish; the attraction to certain qualities in people is not in itself considered sexual fetishism, and while the term fetish has taken on a vernacular meaning of unusual or kinky interests, this article is mostly about sexual fetishism in the clinical, traditional sense. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual fetishism

Hello, I have a few sexual fetishes myself.Nothing to very weird, or extemely out there atlease for todays world.In my medium amount of years in ttodays busy and very sexual world, I have found that a lot of te population have some intents over just off the wall fetishs, exspecially when entering the romantic side of things. People come up with new stuff in that area almost constinely. some are actly, most are actly worth give a try if you have a willing partenter. It can/will spice up the relationship normally. On rare ocutations, it may backfire onit. Opening doors tha some people just can handle. Unfortinutely, you never know until it is over and the feeling all of a sudden are hurt or the trust is gone. You must be extemely careful in dealing with those that want to grow and nurture fetishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.80.0.2 (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)