Voyeurism as a fetish?

[Nirvanadragones]

Need your opinions, please, for an assignment I'm working on. I obviously will not use anything anyone says without their permission

Do you consider voyeurism to be a fetish? What about exhibitionism? Both are widely regarded as having a sexual association, but are they fetishes? Do you consider them perversions? Taboo?

And considering all of this, how do you feel photography fits into this mix? From both perspectives - behind the lens and in front of the lens.

These aren't direct questions . . just chat with me, please. Thank you

 

[TxRad]

Need your opinions, please, for an assignment I'm working on. I obviously will not use anything anyone says without their permission

Do you consider voyeurism to be a fetish? What about exhibitionism? Both are widely regarded as having a sexual association, but are they fetishes? Do you consider them perversions? Taboo?

And considering all of this, how do you feel photography fits into this mix? From both perspectives - behind the lens and in front of the lens.

These aren't direct questions . . just chat with me, please. Thank you

Voyeurism and Exhibitionism are the opposite ends of the same thing. Both are personal choices and in the past they were considered fetishes. Not so much now. I don't think perversion applies unless either are taken to extremes. Perversion has a darker meaning to me. As for taboo, it only applies if underage or incestuousness are involved.

In most cases, in my opinion, the camera is more for the voyeur than the exhibitionist. For the voyeur it freezes the moment in time and space. The voyeur wants to see but wants to be teased and titillated at the same time. Flashes are far more sensuous than flaunts. Something through a sheer curtain is more intriguing than the same thing through clear glass. Mirrors because they are considered second hand looks and not direct fall into the first category.

Exhibitionist run from the shy nervous types who try to make everything look accidental to the full blown exhibitionist who walk down the street fully naked. The one end takes the chance of being seen and the thrill is in the thought they might have been seen. The latter get their thrills from being seen and knowing it. They love showing off their body and even their sexual experiences.

Add a camera to the shy type and they will freeze up and the game is over for them. They don't want any evidence that they know anything about flashing. They are good girls.

Add a camera the the latter type and a lot of the freeze up and grab their clothes also. The true exhibitionist, smiles, grins, laughs, and dances for the camera.

The photographer has to be a voyeur if he/she is to ever capture the sensuousness of any scene. They have to have the eye for looking at life one frame at a time. Life is a movie and knowing what to capture to show that life is the essence of photograph.

Maybe i should have had my coffee before i tried to sting my thought together.

 

[Belegon]

To me, fetish implies something overriding. If you have a fetish for leather, then your sexual thoughts are completely dominated by leather and or situations involving leather and a sexual situation NOT involving leather is somehow incomplete.

So while voyeurism and exhibitionism CAN be fetishes, I think they most often are not.

I have elements of both in me, though mostly of the former. But I don't think there is anything in my makeup that carries through to the point of fetish.

Photography is a subject easily mixed with the other two. And, again speaking simply for myself, I am most influenced by being behind the camera. While I certainly have enjoyed shots taken by others, there is a special satisfaction in shots I took myself. But again, its more on the side of the voyeur.

 

[jeanvaljean23]

both are the oppsites of each other....

 

[English Lady]

I agree very much with what Bel said, except I have more exhibitionist in me.

I wouldn't consider my exhibitionism to be a fetish, just something that adds a little spice to my sex. I don't need it to get off but it certainly is a big turn on.

photography definitely fits in as it's one easily accessible way to indulge in being exhibitionist without having to go very public. There is something particularly arousing about posing for a camera, even if the photos taken never go further than your computer. It's the idea they could be seen by someone else which is arousing although personally I prefer to go that step further and show off the good pictures to people, hence my AV's usually being me.

 

[The_Fool]

If it revolves your life, then it is a fetish.

The camera (especially the digital camera) allowed anyone to be a model and allowed the voyeur to capture the moment. The video camera allowed anyone to be a porn star, knowing and will or not. Smut has always been a leading proponent for Technology. These devices have allowed individuals to scratch those itches with a relative amount of certainty that they won’t get caught unless they do something stupid. Or maybe they want to share. The Internet has once again offered a cheap distribution channel and there may even be money in it.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm actually putting together a fetish anthology and am including voyeurism and exhibitionism. To me fetish is obsession--and both voyeurism and exhibitionism can be followed to obsession.

 

[Huckleman2000]

The two, voyeurism and exhibitionism, seem to be flip sides of the same coin, a mildly deviant symbiosis of mutual titillation. Yet, all cultures have some form of dramatic ritual - the desire to perform and to watch others perform seems to have primordial roots in the human psyche. Furthermore, as children, we must watch other children and adults to learn cooperative behavior and communication skills. Classrooms are also performance spaces, though not solely for the sake of entertainment. So, watching others and being watched constitutes a defining characteristic of, at least, human culture, if not human nature.

So, what is it that distinguishes voyeurism and exhibitionism from normal human activities? Clearly, they are different enough to get labels.

 

[CharleyH]

Need your opinions, please, for an assignment I'm working on. I obviously will not use anything anyone says without their permission

Do you consider voyeurism to be a fetish? What about exhibitionism? Both are widely regarded as having a sexual association, but are they fetishes? Do you consider them perversions? Taboo?

And considering all of this, how do you feel photography fits into this mix? From both perspectives - behind the lens and in front of the lens.

These aren't direct questions . . just chat with me, please. Thank you

Voyeurism is not a fetish.

 

[CharleyH]

If it revolves your life, then it is a fetish.

The camera (especially the digital camera) allowed anyone to be a model and allowed the voyeur to capture the moment. The video camera allowed anyone to be a porn star, knowing and will or not. Smut has always been a leading proponent for Technology. These devices have allowed individuals to scratch those itches with a relative amount of certainty that they won’t get caught unless they do something stupid. Or maybe they want to share. The Internet has once again offered a cheap distribution channel and there may even be money in it.

Intriguing discussion, though!

 

[bronzeage]

Voyeurism is not a fetish.

Voyeurism is not a fetish but some voyeurs are fetishists. Some people say a fetish has to involve an inanimate object, or a non-sexual body part. Maybe so. The object becomes the focus of sexual desire and pleasure. The real sex partner is not as important.

Curiosity and the desire to look at pleasing things is part of human nature. If I am walking down the street and a woman in a short skirt is ahead of me, I will watch her walk. If she climbs the stairs, I want to be behind her. If she bends over to pick something up, I will slow down and enjoy the view.

If I looking at her was the object of my desire, and not the woman, herself, something is different. If I would rather watch her, without her knowledge, than meet her and possibly actually have sex with her, something is very different.

It might not be a fetish, but it is a deviation from the normal.

 

[JamesSD]

Fetishes are traditionally thought of as being aroused by things that aren't inherently sexual such as rubber, leather, shoes, etc. D/s power games can be fetishistic, especially when the genitals aren't really involved in the action.

Voyeurism and exhibitionism involve the human body. So in that sense they aren't really fetishes. It's almost like having a breast, buttock, ass or penis "fetish", or an oral sex "fetish". At the same time, if the thrill comes from the violation of cultural taboos rather than simply viewing the naked body, one might call it a fetish.

So really, a big part of it comes from how one defines fetish. In modern american usage it seems to be "something that turns me on", so in that case it could be a fetish.

 

[CharleyH]

Voyeurism is not a fetish but some voyeurs are fetishists. Some people say a fetish has to involve an inanimate object, or a non-sexual body part. Maybe so. The object becomes the focus of sexual desire and pleasure. The real sex partner is not as important.

Curiosity and the desire to look at pleasing things is part of human nature. If I am walking down the street and a woman in a short skirt is ahead of me, I will watch her walk. If she climbs the stairs, I want to be behind her. If she bends over to pick something up, I will slow down and enjoy the view.

If I looking at her was the object of my desire, and not the woman, herself, something is different. If I would rather watch her, without her knowledge, than meet her and possibly actually have sex with her, something is very different.

It might not be a fetish, but it is a deviation from the normal.

I don't disagree with you, wholly.

 

[bronzeage]

I don't disagree with you, wholly.

It really comes down to an argument between competing definitions. The word "fetish" existed before the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Someone chose the word because it closely fit what they wanted to describe.

Outside of a clinical setting, a writer can use the word as they choose. The reader will take the meaning from the context.

 

[fifty5]

Need your opinions, please, for an assignment I'm working on. I obviously will not use anything anyone says without their permission

Do you consider voyeurism to be a fetish? What about exhibitionism? Both are widely regarded as having a sexual association, but are they fetishes? Do you consider them perversions? Taboo?

And considering all of this, how do you feel photography fits into this mix? From both perspectives - behind the lens and in front of the lens.

These aren't direct questions . . just chat with me, please. Thank you

I don't think there's one right answer...

Voyeurism can just be just enhanced frustration: the boy peeking through a hole in the wall of the girl's changing room isn't (usually) a pervert, he just doesn't know how to get any closer.

If someone doesn't want to get close and touch, but JUST wants to watch (watching first can just be a form of 'foreplay) that is abnormal.

The same range applies to exhibitionism and - for me - can be separated by much the same criteria: if its the closest one can get to skin-on-skin sex, it's aggravated frustration (and can be due to rejection, fear, or clinical inability); if being watched is better than fucking, it's the other end of the scale; again, it can be fore-play, a way to excite and get excited ready for the main event.

Even as perversion, it seems to me there's a grey scale. At one end, variety is the spice of life - doing different weird stuff to add spice is not weird. Only ever getting turned on by weird stuff is weird.

I wouldn't myself use the word fetish, but if either voyeurism or exhibitionism, unconnected with actual sex action is essential, then I don't see much difference to a shoe (or whatever) fetish.

 

[xssve]

I generally distinguish between a fetish and a paraphilia - the former adds spice, the latter is necessary for performance - sort of the difference between an urge and a compulsion - in a true paraphilia, the person has a difficult time functioning sexually without the prop/situation, whereas with a fetish, you can go without, you'd prefer not to.

I think voyeurism typically falls into the fetish category, although I have seen it take on the aspect of a full blown paraphilia, and in a sense, "the other", meaning other people, are always "objects" - psychologically, love is considered a "neurotic attachment" to a foreign object, in this case, a person.

As Huckleman mentions, "exhibitionism" and "voyeurism" in a general sense, are normative, even critical behaviors: as a species, humans rely a great deal on cultural behaviors, which are transmitted largely through the process of mimicry and modeling - "monkey see, monkey do", as they used to say, it's the basic idea behind everything from childrearing (table manners, dress code etc.), to fashion, to theatrical performance, to porn, to politics.

Mob violence is thought to spread through a crowd, much like a virus, simply through body language.

Even religion has significant voyeuristic/exhibitionist aspect to it, what is the crucifixion other than a "scene", albeit with specific symbolic meanings? There is "testifying", baptism, etc., even weddings - it's all very much public theatre. In some cultures the display of the bloody sheets the next morning are required as a proof of the brides virtue.

Sex, being a segregated activity in this culture, with it's attachments of moral horror, shame and guilt, voyeurism and exhibitionism typically refer to a specifically sexual performer/audience dynamic - most mammals don't go out of their way to seek privacy for sexual coupling, it's really a fairly specific human "fetish", and in that sense, voyeurism/exhibitionism is really the norm, privacy is the "fetish", if you take general mammalian behavior as the baseline normative, in which even the gang bang is relatively normative behavior.

Again, porn is the elephant in the room here - people who would never have sex in front of others or profess dismay at having to witness the sexual activities of others may not blink and eye at watching porn.

It's all actually very complicated symbolically, much of Christian theology is based on the denial of of our animal side, an obsession in the Middle ages extending from a specific theology that stressed mans "created" nature, his apartness from the natural world - literally, the missionary position was promoted because it's less reminiscent of the typical mammalian sexual position.

This tension between what is essentially a normal urge - and the exaggerated repressive response to it is, IMO, probably the very mechanism of how paraphilias are generated - at low levels of tension, there is a "forbidden fruit" effect that makes it tantalizing - at high levels of tension, it may become a compulsion, and even in some sense, tantamount to a sort of limited psychotic break.

I think it's no surprise that child abuse and molestation occurs nowhere as frequently as among religious communities where there are far fewer approved outlets for repressed sexual urges.

Teenagers never seem to have any problem making out in front of each other, and it's just not that big a deal: again, body language and verbalization cue as to whether it's just doing what comes natural or an attempt to get attention, and in some sense, knowing who is doing whom, is critical information, required to keep track of genetic relationships and avoid inbreeding - thus, even erotophobic Christian fundies, despite being ostensibly repelled by public displays of affection (usually defended by the "monkey see, monkey do" platitude) are the most sensitive to it, and literally, they are almost to a man (or woman), compulsive voyeurs, it's practically all they talk about these days - sex, sex, sex.

I've seen enough - I can walk right by a couple humping in the street and barely notice. Again, there is usually a different quality of body language involved if being watched is the point, i.e., there are nuances involved, and the pinnacle of the artform is to get everybody's attention while acting like nobody is watching at all - i.e., to act totally unself-consciously.

In some respects, this is the dynamic behind BDSM protocol w/respect to public sceneing: watch, but shut the fuck up - making comments can break the concentration of the actors.

As a fetish, ad hoc scenes may be different, i.e., stories about sex with strangers in public places are fairly common, and usually start out as exhibitionism stories.

Still, as a rule, voyeurism is considered a strictly passive activity, i.e., it's never an invitation to join unless an explicit invitation is extended, you'll find that's pretty standard even - especially - in strip clubs, which are after all, temples of voyeurism/exhibitionism

 

[Salvor-Hardon]

I am not a psychologist, or sex therapist, and I refuse to pretend to be one. I am a pervert.

When we start analyzing fetish and paraphillia and deviant behavior, its all a way to say "you're not normal". Well fuck normal. we all have our bends and twists and kinks. If the world wants a nice narrow "this is normal sex, and everything else is deviant" then fifteen up tight conservative ass holes will feel all self righteous and superior and the rest of us can get laid.

Its sexy. Its fun to flash, to catch a glimpse, to find that one angle that lets you see into the neighbors window, to leave your blinds open just that bit. Fuck trying to categorize it, and analyze it, just do it.

The photography element gives it a wider experience. we have spy cams, and on line galleries and flickr and picasa and photobucket and everything else. We can flash and peek far beyond just the neighborhood, and have a thrill from around the world.

We can make a photo that more approximates the experience of peeking, and the model may get off on it or it just may be a modeling gig. It all comes back to "its sexy".

 

[Verdad]

I may have posted this link before, but it's well worth reading for anyone who wants to understand the difference between a fetish and a mere turn on. It's a case study of a woman with a fetish for amputees—pretty rare, as the gross majority of fetishists tend to be men, but typical in every other regard.

My point being, 'fetish' is colloquially used for anything and everything, and that's okay. If we think of it as a synonym for paraphilia, though, it's typically not just fun and games and it's not correct to assume it has to involve an object.

If it's a major or only source of sexual arousal and satisfaction, if an element of compulsion is present, if the usual DSM criteria are satisfied (the behavior persists for over 6 months, etc), it's a fetish. It doesn't matter if it involves a shoe, a certain type of person (e.g. amputees), or a certain scenario, e.g. baring one's genitals in front of strangers.

Voyeurism and exhibitionism can thus be fetishes when they satisfy the above criteria. DSM-IV recognizes both. One needs to think the proverbial guy in the raincoat here, though, not just someone who enjoys attracting a few complimentary glances.

As mere tendencies, 'voyeurism' and 'exhibitionism' are present in everyone to a degree. Watching and being seen are quintessentially human; who can resist a glance at something sexy or fail to experience a bit of a thrill when desirous looks are upon them? It would be silly to pathologize that, and indeed, there's no need to pathologize a proper fetishist either, if he can deal with it in a way that doesn't impinge on others and doesn't bring misery to himself.

Possibly more interesting than psychopathology is the broader cultural perspective. We can't omit that we live in a culture that could have as its motto "to be is to be seen". What with the internet and reality TV, we're hitting an all-time high of universal voyeurism and exhibitionism. Whatever the natural human tendency, it's being indulged and exploited to the max. Does it always have the sexual connotation that's under discussion here, though?

In my opinion, not nearly as much as it seems. The content can be misleading; that a lot of it is sexual doesn't necessarily testify to a sexual thrill on the part of the person providing it. The good old plight for attention explains a lot, and well, nudie pics are a pretty reliable way of garnering some. People do what works.

That is the dark side I sometimes see—the 'voyeur' half having its normal appetites cultivated into an addiction and the 'exhibitionist' half succumbing to the laws of the market, where more and more output generates less and less of the desired pats on the head. Because on sexual market these halves tend to correspond to males and females to a large degree, it particularly makes me wonder about the position of women.

To be sure, I don't think it's always dark. A happy, healthy person collects a few ego points and a few naughty thrills, just as they would in meat-space, and gets on with their lives. That is great. For vulnerable people, though, there's a lot of potential for sinking deeper.

I don't know if this hits Vana's topic at all, but it's as much as I could think of for now.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Personally I think everyone is a voyeur to some extent. I mean just look at the proliferation of reality shows on the telly. Everyone who watches is in effect a voyeur and those in front of the camera are exhibitionist to an certain extent.

So my take would be if it were a fetish then it is a fetish that, what? 80% of the world enjoys? Is it then a fetish?

 

[redgiantuk]

I always thought Voyeurism is to do with the living, here and now and not photography. As in the excitement comes from actual instant pleasure of seeing something that can never be repeated. Am I wrong?

As for both being fetishes? No, I don't think so but I can't back it up with an argument