Fetishism, females, Marx, Freud and Mulvey, oh my!

[CharleyH]

I imagine this won't be a hugely popular thread, but for those of you with an interest is discussing the philosophy or theorem of women and fetish ... I would like to raise a discussion.

I am seriously having difficulty coming across research and discussion regarding female fetishism. The world appears to be filled with theories regarding fetish and men, but in my current endeavour I wanted to explore fetish from a uniquely female perspective/ theory.

To simplify, in Marxist theory fetish appears to be one of commodity, the fetish commodity being the female or a part of her (tits, for example). Freudian fetish lays value on a supposed valueless object (the lack of phallus - the pussy) which becomes valued because of the lack, and is fetishized as an object (other than the pussy or quite frankly other than female) ...

So, if fetish is the commodification of the female on the one hand, and the exaggerated value of something that doesn't exist on the other (phallic lack), where in the world does female fetish desire come from since she is not prone to commodify herself and rarely mourns her own phallic lack?

Sorry if this sounds confusing, but I truly am just trying to get to the philosophical centre of female fetishism. I have been reading Laura Mulvey's "Fetishism and Curiosity" (All my books are not available to me right now) but she never seems to discuss where female fetish desire is located, or from where it arises (and that in itself is a long standing issue I have had with feminist academia).

Add, discuss or rant if you must ... in all cases I thank you.

 

[3113]

Sorry if this sounds confusing, but I truly am just trying to get to the philosophical centre of female fetishism. I have been reading Laura Mulvey's "Fetishism and Curiosity" (All my books are not available to me right now) but she never seems to discuss where female fetish desire is located, or from where it arises (and that in itself is a long standing issue I have had with feminist academia).

First, can you define what you mean by Female Fetishism in accord with this book? Exactly what are we talking about?

Second, I really don't think Marx or Freud are of any (or much) value in discussing such things out. They have ajendas and will manipulate facts to fit their pet theory. Hence, Marx manipulates "fetish" to fit into his theory of everything being economically driven; Freud manipulates "fetish" to fit into his theory of male dominated neuroses--that is, Freud is a male-chauvanist in his theories on psychology and will almost always link mental problems to the phallus or problems with the phallus.

Neither of these guys did any scientific research or blind studies; nor did they do extensive investagation into a variety of people with fetishes. Freud, for example, based his theories on middle-class, Edwardian Germans. That's both a very small sample and also not a real valid sample if one is going to theories on human psychology in general.

This isn't to say he got it all wrong--but a lot of modern psychology is finding that certain problems have nothing to do with how your dad treated you (like, or example, whether or not you're a homosexual). Ditto with Marx. But theorizing in your study is not the same as doing real field research and accepting the answers even if they don't fit your theory--and readjusting that theory accordingly.

Just my passing observation on that.

 

[Dr_Strabismus]

Somebody give me an example of a female fetish here: I get confused between the technical term "fetish" versus the (mis?)use of the word to mean "sexual kink".

 

[CharleyH]

First, can you define what you mean by Female Fetishism in accord with this book? Exactly what are we talking about?

Second, I really don't think Marx or Freud are of any (or much) value in discussing such things out. They have ajendas and will manipulate facts to fit their pet theory. Hence, Marx manipulates "fetish" to fit into his theory of everything being economically driven; Freud manipulates "fetish" to fit into his theory of male dominated neuroses--that is, Freud is a male-chauvanist in his theories on psychology and will almost always link mental problems to the phallus or problems with the phallus.

Neither of these guys did any scientific research or blind studies; nor did they do extensive investagation into a variety of people with fetishes. Freud, for example, based his theories on middle-class, Edwardian Germans. That's both a very small sample and also not a real valid sample if one is going to theories on human psychology in general.

This isn't to say he got it all wrong--but a lot of modern psychology is finding that certain problems have nothing to do with how your dad treated you (like, or example, whether or not you're a homosexual). Ditto with Marx. But theorizing in your study is not the same as doing real field research and accepting the answers even if they don't fit your theory--and readjusting that theory accordingly.

Just my passing observation on that.

Females who have fetishes as opposed to males who have fetishes - I am looking for a theory on how female's fetishise. I realize Marx and Freud are limited ... most theorists are and I prefer to discuss fetish as a theory rather than a psychological problem.

 

[neonlyte]

Females who have fetishes as opposed to males who have fetishes - I am looking for a theory on how female's fetishise. I realize Marx and Freud are limited ... most theorists are and I prefer to discuss fetish as a theory rather than a psychological problem.

Just to be pedantic, do you mean how as in the mechanisms used, or why as in the forces that motivate?

 

[CharleyH]

Somebody give me an example of a female fetish here: I get confused between the technical term "fetish" versus the (mis?)use of the word to mean "sexual kink".

lol - indeed a problem in itself ... fetish as need rather than kink would be good.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You won't find much discourse on the female aspects of much of anything...

Here's a link that might be of use to you
http://community.livejournal.com/virgule/
One post in particular will lead you to this post in another journal;
http://robin-anne-reid.livejournal.com/1302.html
which will lead you to this conversation;
http://kbusse.wordpress.com/2007/05/01/mit5-review/


Somewhere in all of this is an excellent phrase;

"The women that men don't see"

All I can say is that I have many fetishes, and that I have been at the mercy of some of them in my time.

I most certainly do have "a problem with the phallus" as you put it-- the thing is unaccountably missing.

And I have been accused of being unfeminine-- by a lot of women.

So, maybe fetishism in women is linked to gender dysphoria. Or, maybe not. Maybe our society's veiw of gender behaviours is way off the mark.

(edited to add) I don't talk theory very well, do I!

 

[R. Richard]

To simplify, in Marxist theory fetish appears to be one of commodity, the fetish commodity being the female or a part of her (tits, for example). Freudian fetish lays value on a supposed valueless object (the lack of phallus - the pussy) which becomes valued because of the lack, and is fetishized as an object (other than the pussy or quite frankly other than female) ...

Let us define our terms here. Are we talking Karl Marx or Groucho Marx?

 

[Vermilion]

Laura Mulvey - boo hiss.
</threadjack>

x
V


ps- sorry Charley - just being force-fed critical theory as revision for finals and have had enough of Mulvey, Pollock, Nochlin and all their ilk. Fuck the lot of them. I fully realise that this is in no way helpful to your query. Apologies.

 

[neonlyte]

Fair few links here C/h. I explored some for a piece I wrote last year.

http://xn--vox585a.com/?q=foot-fetichism

My own curiosity lies in the way women are licensed to look at other women, not easy to get inside their heads

 

[CharleyH]

Thanks Stella and Neon.

R. Richard: no comment.

Vermilion: lol hear ya

The question of female fetish ... still weighs. Is there even such a thing?

 

[R. Richard]

Thanks Stella and Neon.

R. Richard: no comment.

Vermilion: lol hear ya

The question of female fetish ... still weighs. Is there even such a thing?

OK, stupid question. Definitely Groucho!

 

[Stella_Omega]

OK, stupid question. Definitely Groucho!

I'm reminded of "The Marathon man;"

"is it safe?"

Oh yes, perfectly safe.

"Is it safe?"

No, it's not safe.



But face it, Richard, neither you or I can answer Charley in the language she's looking for.

 

[Liar]

Females who have fetishes as opposed to males who have fetishes - I am looking for a theory on how female's fetishise. I realize Marx and Freud are limited ... most theorists are and I prefer to discuss fetish as a theory rather than a psychological problem.

Do you assume that there is a gender difference as to the hows and the causes? And if so, why do you assume that?

 

[gauchecritic]

I am given to understand that the definition of fetish (without googling) is that it is 'abnormal' sexual practices which are intimately linked with individual psychology.

Sexual psychology is as diverse as its population and any fetish will be on a sliding scale similar to gender. So assuming that BDSM is a fetish then this is simply a convenient label (like gender) to categorise a general tendency.

The only example of a true 'fetish' that I've actually heard described was of a man that needed to be 'in nature' to be able to orgasm. Through hypnosis and therapy it was discovered that his earliest sexual memories were of watching or listening to his parents doing sex whilst on camping holidays.

Gender neutral I would guess.

This is how I view fetishes. Whether that is of use is un autre affaire.

 

[R. Richard]

But face it, Richard, neither you or I can answer Charley in the language she's looking for.

True, but I have to think that Groucho probably could.

 

[firefly03k64]

Well, Hmmm.

I'm not convinced male and female fetishism are vastly different at all. I believe the difference to be subtle. Maybe so subtle there isn't much material on the subject. I dunno.

My (admittedly limited) understanding is, that these things we "turn into" fetishes as we develop sexually, and otherwise, are rooted in our childhoods.

Which, I agree with for the most part.

And I believe until about age three, if I remember my biology, and after menopause are when the female and male hormone levels are the most similar. Meaning there are three whole years of experiences. Pleasure, dislike, comfort,pain, joy, sadness, anger. With our brains making stong associations(visual,aural assocaitoins necessary for human survival) in tandem with these emotions. Particularly if there is a release of endorphins. We will associate a nearby object....or body part...or type of person, with that feeling that initiated the endorphin release. That is true of both sexes

Some fetishes(IMO, most) are a seed planted so deep...so long ago, it is hard to remember how it started.

Anyhow, not saying all fetishes start in infancy or early childhood. But, I suspect if we could look back through each day of our life there would be a defining moment in our childhood so rich in emotion,(and association) that it left an impression. And then, either by chance or purpose, was reinforced.

<laughs>

good question.

 

[neonlyte]

Tried to post this yesterday but my Internet went down for several hours.

One approach is to consider the construct placed on fetishism within society. Fetish behaviour = outcast/deviant but only within the framework of convention. In societies where fetish behaviour is the norm, the reverse applies. They exist, see the links I provided earlier. This doesn't actually take you too far forward without considering the psychological input that roots fetish behaviour within the constraints of what is considered normal behaviour. The trick (I think) is to look at the abstract, divorce society imposed precepts and consider only behavioural traits.

I don't pretend to know which aspect of female fetishism you wish to explore, my own interest, which is only marginally on the scale of 'fetish', is with the way women look at other women. This is difficult to resolve since styling plays a significant role. I resolved this for myself (for a scene in a novel) by theorising that women look at other women because it is far 'safer' - in terms of sociological constructs - than looking at men. Unfortunately, I've not found any theoretical evidence to support this theorum

 

[elsol]

I have to wonder about an attempt to explain an overarching thing such as 'fetishim'... not only in a male, but in a female, whose sexuality has not received a whole lot of attention in comparison and when it does it is cast though the looking glass of male sexuality.

I can trace my 'fetishist' behavior and sexual preferences to nearly exact moments.

The physical type that I prefer comes from it being the particular type of the first woman that made me go "You, woman! Me, Man!"

The other stuff has similar roots... Wonder Woman gets captured by the Nazis; the off-think midgets in the Buck Rogers episode.

Blonds I don't particularly get where I got it from... but probably from it being my 'oppossite' during those three seconds of teen angst where I thought I was unattractive and would remain a virgin for all eternity.

I always thought experience at a particularly focal moment was the reason for fetishism, but only because it's my experience.

 

[Pure]

i would like to hear some purported examples, or first person accounts.

i think the [het] female equivalent of some of the common [het] male fetish practices simply does not [or almost never] exists. example: man buys some panties from a woman he's seen once over the 'net, and then jacks off with them or while smelling them.

off the top of my head, the only vaguely similar thing would be for a woman to keep a token of her (absent) lover--say his T shirt--and use it to stimulate her imagination while jillin'.

i think in a lesbian context, there might be some approximations, as for example getting peed on, as a way of getting aroused.

 

[Liar]

BTW, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Marx's commodity fetichism and Freud's fetishism paraphilia (which is what we're actually talking about here, right?) two entirely different beasts? The only common denominator between the two being the reference to a fetish. And a fetish is nothing but an inanimate man-made object believed to have powers or properties beyond it's mere physical shape. Marx's use of the word has nothing at all to do with sexuality as far as I can tell, and it seems rather contrived to attempt to read that into it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

i would like to hear some purported examples, or first person accounts.

i think the [het] female equivalent of some of the common [het] male fetish practices simply does not [or almost never] exists. example: man buys some panties from a woman he's seen once over the 'net, and then jacks off with them or while smelling them.

off the top of my head, the only vaguely similar thing would be for a woman to keep a token of her (absent) lover--say his T shirt--and use it to stimulate her imagination while jillin'.

i think in a lesbian context, there might be some approximations, as for example getting peed on, as a way of getting aroused.

What-- you want to take the discussion out of the theoretical?

 

[Grushenka]

BTW, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Marx's commodity fetichism and Freud's fetishism paraphilia (which is what we're actually talking about here, right?) two entirely different beasts? The only common denominator between the two being the reference to a fetish. And a fetish is nothing but an inanimate man-made object believed to have powers or properties beyond it's mere physical shape. Marx's use of the word has nothing at all to do with sexuality as far as I can tell, and it seems rather contrived to attempt to read that into it.

Finally, someone who's actually read the primary texts. Thank you, Liar.

 

[Pure]

hi stella,

i love theory; don't get me wrong. i would just like to see some data. my friend verdad sent me an account that was found. i hope it's posted. the only examples that come to mind are from Pat Califia (when she was she) and from the movie Piano Teacher. in both cases the 'fetish' was tied up(?) with degradation scenarios [as i would call them] with fetishishic elements; and i do believe some women like those; AS WELL AS a sizable contingent of us males.

i tend to agree with grush and liar about there being a tenuous connection; though i suppose if one is freudian, consumer behavior, esp. the weird stuff is going to have a sexual motive.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

This is just useless here.

Unless you define what you mean by "fetishism" and "fetishize", then - as several people have pointed out - we literally don't know what you're talking about. Are you talking about the displacement of the object of desire onto a particular inanimate object or body part? Or an exaggerated interest in a type of sexual activity?

I have the feeling it doesn't matter. Charley comes from a film background. She's looking for one of those French Intellectual-style political anlyses that will link any sort of fetishism to post-industrial consumer-driven alienation or somesuch, right?

Who said it? "The French are driven to levels of orgasmic delight by the thought of Americans committing mass suicide."

Naw. I want to at least see an example of what you're talking about. These abstract conversations always end up like our discussions of religion.