fetishism

fetishism The concept of erotic fetishism originated with the French psychologist Alfred Binet (better known for his work on intelligence testing) in an article published in 1887 in the Revue Philosophique, and was given further currency by the Italian criminologist Cesare Lombroso. However, the idea was put into wider circulation by the great collator of sexually diverse practices, Richard von Krafft–Ebing, in many editions and translations of his Psychopathia Sexualis, up to his death in 1902. He defined erotic fetishism (differing somewhat from earlier writers) as associating strong emotions of sexual pleasure with physical or mental qualities of, or even objects used by, a beloved person, and considered this part of normal sexual attraction. However, he also suggested that a predisposition to be sexually aroused by particular characteristics could be the motive for falling in love with or becoming infatuated with a specific individual associated one way or another with those characteristics, rather than an individual leading to an obsession with characteristics connected with them.

Krafft–Ebing made a distinction between what he called ‘physiological fetishism’, or a preference for certain particular physical characteristics in persons of the opposite sex, and what he defined as ‘pathological, erotic fetishism’. This was not merely directed to particular portions of the body, but extended to inanimate objects, usually articles of female apparel, or towards particular materials such as furs or velvet. But there was no hard and fast dividing line. The fetishist of the body part was stimulated by something which would normally arouse the sexual instinct, but his sexual interests were restricted to that particular part. There were also fetishists attached to some bodily part with no obvious connection to sex, and those interested in particular kinds of bodies, e.g. those exhibiting some kind of deformity. In the case of object fetishism, Krafft-Ebing noted transitional states, from ‘mere physiological preferences’ in which intercourse with the fetish was more pleasurable, through coitus feeling less satisfactory if the fetish were not present, to complete impotence if it were absent.

Krafft-Ebing attributed the development of fetishism to some event whereby erotic feelings became associated with some particular body part or object; this is still today usually considered to play a significant part in its aetiology. While invoking environmental circumstances, he also suggested that individuals who formed these bizarre associations were predisposed to psychopathic states and excessive sexual desire, in keeping with his theories about the role of degenerate heredity and neuropathy in the aetiology of sexual disorders. Recent writers on the subject, e.g. John Bancroft in Human Sexuality and its Problems (1989), cite experimental demonstration that the male erectile response is capable of being conditioned to react to unusual stimuli. The reason why the conditioned response to particular stimuli which results in the formation of a fetish is so much more prevalent in the male may be, Bancroft suggests, because of the obviousness of penile erection. This sets up an unmissable visual and sensory link between the object of the stimulus and sexual arousal. Women may be less likely to identify pleasurable feelings invoked by certain objects or textures as specifically sexual in nature (experimental evidence demonstrating women's physiological signs of arousal, even though they denied erotic response, to sexually stimulating visual materials tends to corroborate this possibility).

The questions remain why some particular stimulus becomes the focus of erotic sensation, and why some are more likely to be conditioned than others. Fetishes are seldom completely random objects or attributes, although Bancroft points out that the particular object chosen by an individual may well have purely personal significance. There continue to be various definite areas of fetishistic interest, which, however, change over time. Krafft-Ebing considered hand-fetishism common, but Bancroft reports this as now being extremely infrequent. Feet, however, and shoes, remain an area of considerable interest. Rubber is not mentioned by Krafft– Ebing as of particular interest alongside furs, velvet, and silk, but the twentieth century saw the rise of a definite sub-group of rubber fetishists. This may be connected with the more widespread use of various rubber items for child care (sheets for changing the baby, waterproof pants, etc.). Leather and PVC also have their subcultures of devotees. This suggests that fetishes are not only psychologically determined but subject to various social influences.

The designation of particular bodily parts as sexually stimulating by particular societies could be considered as a culturally-produced form of fetishism. Certain attributes — large breasts, bound feet, a glimpse of ankle — may be preferences so deeply encoded into a particular culture's sensibility as to appear ‘natural’ and not in need of any explanation. Therefore, a man (and fetishists are almost exclusively male) whose sexual response is very specifically tied to some such apparently universal stimulus is unlikely to consider himself as a fetishist even if interest in the stimulus greatly outweighs that towards the person whose breasts or feet they may be. If, however, he is aroused by some other body part or some unusual quality in the approved attribute (small rather than large breasts, for example), he may at least be aware of something that distinguishes him from the multitude, without describing himself as a ‘fetishist’.

The strict Freudian psychoanalytic interpretation of the fetish is that it represents the penis, and operates as either a protection against the fetishist's fear of castration, or a denial of the penis-less state of the woman. It seems certainly to be the case that the fetish operates as a defence against impotence if it is employed in a coital situation: it may do this by acting as a reliable stimulus to arousal and erection, or possibly more magically by its association with sexual arousal.

Not all fetishes are capable of being deployed within a reciprocal sexual relationship. Men may feel hesitant about revealing their particular quirk to a partner, or may eschew employing the fetish within marital life, going instead to prostitutes. The fetish may be associated with other minority sexual practices: in descriptions of the pleasures of rubber it is not always clear whether it is the sensation of rubber against the skin or the sense of being tightly bound in this clinging substance which is the main component of the sexual kick. Fetishism may be overtly combined with sadomasochist rituals: Maurice North, in his study of rubber fetishism, The Outer Fringe of Sex (1970) notes the pervasive elements of domination in fantasies written for the rubber market, and that rubber fetishism is but one component in a ‘syndrome’ including boots, leather, PVC, and sadomasochistic tendencies.

While many of the statistically less common forms of sexual behaviour can be shown to have been practised by individuals throughout the course of human history, even if they were not conceptualized as sexual perversions, fetishism is not so readily detected before its identification by late-nineteenth-century sexologists. It is merely conjectural that it was the ‘liquefaction’ of Julia's silks rather than Julia which allured Robert Herrick, that the abundant and curling tresses celebrated by poets were the real focus of attraction. Impotence occurring when the fetish was not present occasionally brought fetishism to medical attention, but in many cases its significance was probably not recognized. It has seldom figured in divorce proceedings. Krafft– Ebing noted that it did, however, have forensic implications in cases of fetishists compelled to steal the items of their desire — but, again, the erotic motivation may not have been recognized before he pointed it out. North, in his study, was writing at the time of the ‘Permissive Society’, when a certain degree of ‘kinkiness’ was fashionable and designers incorporated themes (such as high boots) from the sexual underworld, but he found nevertheless that rubber fetishism was largely a hidden deviance, kept deeply secret by its practitioners because of their own shame: this may also apply to other fetishes. For example, while men may readily reveal a ‘normal’ predilection for legs, breasts, or bottoms, it is less likely that a fondness for feet would be admitted.

While North found publications circulating among individuals sharing this obsession, there was no subculture comparable to that of homosexuals or even sadomasochists. At the time he wrote (and it is doubtful whether this has changed radically) most rubber fetishists wanted a relationship involving rubber items with a consenting female, but extremely few women were interested: and these were either prostitutes catering to a niche market, or wives or partners introduced to rubber sex by their male partners. Thus there was very little motivation to join a community which would include few potential partners, but competitors for any possible partners available. Most of the rubber fetishists investigated by North contented themselves with fantasy and masturbation, sometimes with the aid of fetish products and special-interest publications. As a very private vice, it did not have the visibility or social implications of other transgressive sexual behaviours. The incorporation of fetish motifs into mainstream fashion, and the appearance of a few fashionable fetish clubs in major urban centres, is not necessarily any indicator of a wider acceptance of fetishism.

Lesley A. Hall