Gomphopothic
Arousal from the sight of teeth
Spectrophilia
Arousal from images in mirror OR spirits and ghosts
Timophilia
Arousal from gold or wealth
Phygephilia
Arousal from being a fugitive
Psychrophilia
Arousal from being cold
Hodophilia
Arousal from traveling
Homilophilia
Arousal from giving or hearing sermons
Normophilia
Arousal by acts considered normal by their religion or society
Phobophilia
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:
Symphorophilia
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):
Tripsolagnia
Arousal from having hair shampooed
Sitophilia
Arousal from food
Undinism
Arousal from water
Melolagnia
Arousal from music
Choreophilia
Dancing oneself to orgasm
Transformation fetish
sexual arousal from depictions of transformations of people into objects or other beings
Psycholagny
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.
10 comments:
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?
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.
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.
Chorephilia sounds wonderful. Dancing oneself to orgasm mmmmmmm, but I don't have it unfortunately.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Podophilia
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
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.
Post a Comment