Tuesday, March 27, 2007


Tracked back to this site via jumping off a keyword search. speaking of "desire" week...well, if you ever needed proof that there's a fetish for absolutely EVERYTHING, this site's got a fairly comprehensive list of some of the more....well...outre? Some of 'em i really truly can't endorse--there are names for decidedly illegal and unethical practices in there--but here are some of the ones that just made me kind of go, "hm?"

Arousal from the sight of teeth

Arousal from images in mirror OR spirits and ghosts

Arousal from gold or wealth

Arousal from being a fugitive

Arousal from being cold

Arousal from traveling

Arousal from giving or hearing sermons

Arousal by acts considered normal by their religion or society

Arousal from hate or fear

...actually, that last one makes a kind of sense. actually a lot of some of the others would explain a lot of seemingly inexplicable behavior. f'r instance:

Stage-managing a disaster and then observing it

I can sort of dig the "sermon" one, too, actually, come to think of it.

In fact, there are a number that do actually resonate a bit for moi. Putting aside the ones that are more familiar (i.e. some of the BDSM ones, some of the body part and clothing ones):

Arousal from having hair shampooed

Arousal from food

Arousal from water

Arousal from music

Dancing oneself to orgasm

Transformation fetish
sexual arousal from depictions of transformations of people into objects or other beings

Arousal from psychic or mental stimulation


But what the whole thing says to me is just how narrow our ideas of sexuality often are. and how pointless it is to corral only certain things into "erotic." Eros is...a channel, I'd say. There are all kinds of theories as to how certain "non-traditional" preferences get streamed into that channel for a person; most of them rather of the pathologizing model, unfortunately. It's not an area that's talked about well or smartly enough by far, imho. John Money's "lovemaps" is probably more useful than many, but...yeah, i dunno. An enigma, wrapped in bacon.

mmmm. bacon.


Central Content Publisher said...

I once knew a women who got turned on by dentistry. Not dentists, but the act of receiving dental treatment. This was a conundrum for her because she really liked having nice teeth, but the better the condition of her teeth, the less dentistry she needed. And she REALLY wanted dentistry.

Which brings me to my question (yeah, I have a question). It seems to me that fetish is used to describe two distinctly different relationships with the object of one's fetish. The first says that the object's presence (the object can be an action too, or whatever) arouses the subject sexually. The second says that the subject is incapable of arousal without the presence of the object.

While I fully support the former, the later causes me worry. My dentistry friend, for example, wouldn't dream of damaging her teeth to get some of the good stuff - as she says, "thank god it's not my only pleasure." If it were though, well, that would be something entirely different.

Almost forgot! The question: is there a rhetorical way to talk about inclusive versus exclusive fetishes and _philias?

belledame222 said...

I think that's more a continuum, the to-what-degree-it's-necessary-for-the-fetish-to-be-present thing. I think the real question has more to do with how or whether one -relates- to -people-, than to what specifically gets one's genital juices flowing. if that makes sense.

not sure i'm quite understanding that last question.

Central Content Publisher said...

Inclusive means: this is another thing that turns me on.

Exclusive means: this is the ONLY thing that turns me on.

I think "fetish" was initially used to describe the exclusive kind of arousal, but colloquially isn't used the same way. _philias, as I understand it, aren't necessarily exclusive.

I was just wondering if there's a way to talk about the difference without having to go through this explanation... which I often find myself doing when people start talking about their fetish.

whether one -relates- to -people- - belledame222

Certainly. Exclusive fetishes, I've found, are fairly indicative of a problem relating to people.

Winter said...

Chorephilia sounds wonderful. Dancing oneself to orgasm mmmmmmm, but I don't have it unfortunately.

Eli said...

There is a priest in Lempriere's Dictionary who can only achieve climax by stripping naked and covering his entire body with mashed potatoes.

I've no idea what the clinical term for this would be, or whether it in fact exists outside of this book, and I'm fairly certain that I don't have it.

Cassandra Says said...

On the exclusive versus inclusive issue...originally the term "fetish" was supposed to indicate the former more than the latter, at least in terms of psychological diagnosis. In fact, the term "fetish" definately carries a whiff of pathology in psychiatry. What most of us mean when we use it in a colloquial sense is quite different. I have several fetishes in the inclusive sense (some of the same as Belle, actually), but none at all in the exclusive sense.

Central Content Publisher said...

originally the term "fetish" was supposed to indicate the former more than the latter - Cassandra

I though it was primarily directed at exclusive fetishes. I stand corrected.

Cassandra Says said...

Former versus latter = the first of the two things mentioned, in this case exclusive.
Ie, yes, it indicated exclusive fetishes, at least in psychiatric terms.

Bint Alshamsa said...

Arousal from feet

My college boyfriend had this. He used to like to lick my feet, especially after I'd worn sandals all day. He liked to lick the dirt off of them.

Now you know more about me than you probably ever wanted to but it's your own fault for posting about this. :P

Emily O. said...

Another- vorarephilia. As I understand it, vores are turned on by the idea of consuming or enveloping others or of being consumed or otherwise enveloped themselves.