Women don't have fetishes

[Pure]

it would follow that woman cannot exhibit "fetishism of commodities," since she herself is a (fetishized) commodity, in capitalist and precapitalist formations.

 

[cumallday]

In my experience a lot of women have a fetish for men with money.

no cash no gash.

 

[Stella_Omega]

it would follow that woman cannot exhibit "fetishism of commodities," since she herself is a (fetishized) commodity, in capitalist and precapitalist formations.

In my experience a lot of women have a fetish for men with money.

no cash no gash.

A beautifully symmetric juxtaposition.

 

[Boxlicker101]

it would follow that woman cannot exhibit "fetishism of commodities," since she herself is a (fetishized) commodity, in capitalist and precapitalist formations.

That's an extreme exaggeration. Without question, some women in the United States use themselves as commodities, or allow themselves to be used as commodities. They derive some real or imagined benefit from such use: drugs, the affections of their pimps, compliments, jewelry, multi-million dollar modeling or film contracts, or whatever. However, the vast majority of women do nothing of the sort except for, like men, selling their services as plumbers, lawyers, copy writers, corporate executives, painters, pilots, truck drivers, or whatever.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

defining the word "fetish"

I knew a very sexy, extraordinarily charming 83 year old man long ago, who was among other things a retired, very brilliant Freudian psychologist. One day, when my friend Nancy was trapped in a back seat with him on the way home from the beach (I was in the front, dammit all) he began to molest her bare foot, sucking her toes and that sort of thing.

As she giggled and tried to stop him, she said, "Well, Bill, do we have a foot fetish?"

"Darling," he said patronizingly between nibbles, "A FETISH is some behavior or object one definitely NEEDS in order to orgasm at all. This, my dear, is simply an Extreme Fondness."

DSM-IV be damned; that's a definition that will be clear in my memory forever.

So given that definition, my guess is that fewer women have random-object fetishes, that is, an association or object or behavior that is NECESSARY to get them off (panties, shoes, Groucho Marx glasses, pictures of mom), than men do. Unless you count vibrators, in which case I'd be willing to bet the women outnumber the men in the fetish category. Sadly, it is entirely too easy for women to become completely dependent on that particular stimulus and not be able to get off any other way. I'd say that can then be defined as an actual fetish.

my two scents.
bijou

 

[Stella_Omega]

I knew a very sexy, extraordinarily charming 83 year old man long ago, who was among other things a retired, very brilliant Freudian psychologist. One day, when my friend Nancy was trapped in a back seat with him on the way home from the beach (I was in the front, dammit all) he began to molest her bare foot, sucking her toes and that sort of thing.

As she giggled and tried to stop him, she said, "Well, Bill, do we have a foot fetish?"

"Darling," he said patronizingly between nibbles, "A FETISH is some behavior or object one definitely NEEDS in order to orgasm at all. This, my dear, is simply an Extreme Fondness."

DSM-IV be damned; that's a definition that will be clear in my memory forever.

So given that definition, my guess is that fewer women have random-object fetishes, that is, an association or object or behavior that is NECESSARY to get them off (panties, shoes, Groucho Marx glasses, pictures of mom), than men do. Unless you count vibrators, in which case I'd be willing to bet the women outnumber the men in the fetish category. Sadly, it is entirely too easy for women to become completely dependent on that particular stimulus and not be able to get off any other way. I'd say that can then be defined as an actual fetish.

my two scents.
bijou

Women can become habituated to vibrators, but for it to be a fetish she'd need to objectify the vibrator itself-- as opposed to the sensation it gives her alone. That said, I'm sure there are women who do fetishise their toys. Lord knows, I've seen a few lately in catalogs, that looked worthy of some intense adoration...

 

[CeriseNoire]

That said, I'm sure there are women who do fetishise their toys. Lord knows, I've seen a few lately in catalogs, that looked worthy of some intense adoration...

I wonder though, were they worthy of adoration in a sexual context, or because they were gorgeous pieces?

 

[SimpleGifts]

Wow. So much fodder for debate here. A few points (and I apologize for the lack of attribution, I'm getting lost in the discourse here):

In order for it to be considered a real fetish by the APA, it has to impair your life in some way..

I don't have the DSM-IV or any other text on hand, but if it impairs your life doesn't that make it an ADDICTION? I don't think that all fetishes are necessarily addictions. Of course, in psychological terms, if you can ONLY achieve sexual gratification through a particular object, then it theoretically DOES impair your life (since non-fetishists can achieve sexual gratification from a variety of stimuli).

Men are attracted to sexy women, but it wouldn't matter what their occupations or professions might be.

Perhaps true in general, but aren't there men who insist that their sex partners dress as nurses, librarians, maids, etc.? Isn't that a kind of fetish?

Oh, and some men are attracted to men and not women.

Psychoanalysis is based on the assumption that men go through a period of castration phase (grr, I am tired and can't think of actual term) Women do not have access to that same phase because they have no phallus and relate to the mother ... ergo, when men(boys) realize they are different from mother ... there is a whole different traumatic issue ... women are not different from mother therefore there is no trauma?

So far, this is the only formal definition of a fetish in "psychoanalytic" terms that I've seen here. If that's a fundamental postulate of psychoanalysis, then there are vast swaths of psychosexual behavior that can ONLY be male behavior. But that's an artifact of the discipline. If only men can suffer trauma in their sexual selves, then by definition no woman can be a sexual "deviant" of any kind, correct?

It makes no sense for women to be fetishists and it is unimaginable that women would get gratification from the use of inanimate objects or mere partial object alone."

"It makes no sense" and "unimaginable" are clearly gross overstatements here. I could also claim that homosexuality "makes no sense" but that wouldn't enable me to argue that it does not exist. I can imagine a situation where a woman only obtains gratification in conjunction with an inanimate object...whether such a situation exists in reality is a different issue.

I would also disagree with the statement that medical science focuses on men. I have no figures, but I would bet that more is spent on research into breast cancer than anything, except maybe AIDS. That's not a complaint; I'm just voicing disagreement.

Um, I have to look up the figures, but I can tell you from talking to medical researchers that if you want to get funding for a new treatment, go to Washington and say that it treats prostate cancer. Prostate cancer gets a LOT of medical funding, probably more than breast cancer. Why? Look at the demographics of the Congress and you'll get a hint.

To get back to the original question...women don't have fetishes if psychoanalysis assumes that fetishes develop through a psychological process that is inherently applicable only to males. I do believe that there are women who do have fetishes, however.

SG

 

[Stella_Omega]

I wonder though, were they worthy of adoration in a sexual context, or because they were gorgeous pieces?

Oh, both definitely-- like yourself for example, only not nearly as much.

 

[CeriseNoire]

Oh, both definitely-- like yourself for example, only not nearly as much.

For once, I'm speechless...

 

[Stella_Omega]

For once, I'm speechless...

I guess I'm not so fetishistic as all that, when faced with the choice; I'd rather have real beauty-- the kind that can kiss back

 

[CeriseNoire]

I guess I'm not so fetishistic as all that, when faced with the choice; I'd rather have real beauty-- the kind that can kiss back

... says the gorgeous pirate

 

[Stella_Omega]

... says the gorgeous pirate

Arr!

Come along o' me, lassie, I'll take ye sailin' in my dinghy
... and demonstrate me Extreme Fondness for yer little toesies...

 

[CeriseNoire]

Arr!

Come along o' me, lassie, I'll take ye sailin' in my dinghy
... and demonstrate me Extreme Fondness for yer little toesies...

Coming back to fetishes?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Coming back to fetishes?

Mustn't threadjack for too long, right?

 

[Eluard]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. That's why I said they looked more like feet than penises.

Well, now that you punch the word 'more' isn't it obvious that your point is irrelevant. A zebra looks more like a horse than a donkey, but a donkey still looks like a horse.

Secondly, you want to emphasize the psychoanalytic interpretation of the word 'fetish' over the more loose and popular sense, but it isn't clear that the loose and popular sense is not now the more important one. And in that sense if one invests an object with importance because of some transference of sexual qualities, then it is a fetish. And in that sense the collecting of large numbers of shoes is very plausibly fetishistic.

When a man prefers to have his lover dress as a nurse, that is a fetish, even if he could come perfectly well without her dressing up. That is how most people now use the term.

BTW I have nothing invested in whether shoes are or are not fetish objects but I think your arguments to the contrary are just not convincing. And hey, how long have men had to put up with women claiming that cars are penis substitutes? It is nice to have the shoe on the other foot for a change (so to speak!).

 

[CeriseNoire]

Well, now that you punch the word 'more' isn't it obvious that your point is irrelevant. A zebra looks more like a horse than a donkey, but a donkey still looks like a horse.

Secondly, you want to emphasize the psychoanalytic interpretation of the word 'fetish' over the more loose and popular sense, but it isn't clear that the loose and popular sense is not now the more important one. And in that sense if one invests an object with importance because of some transference of sexual qualities, then it is a fetish. And in that sense the collecting of large numbers of shoes is very plausibly fetishistic.

When a man prefers to have his lover dress as a nurse, that is a fetish, even if he could come perfectly well without her dressing up. That is how most people now use the term.

BTW I have nothing invested in whether shoes are or are not fetish objects but I think your arguments to the contrary are just not convincing. And hey, how long have men had to put up with women claiming that cars are penis substitutes? It is nice to have the shoe on the other foot for a change (so to speak!).

Find it irrelevant if you wish, the reason I had the word in bold was because I was sarcastically answering your asking if I was saying one item couldn't look like two things. I just thought the answer should fit the question.

As for my choice of emphasis, as I said, I was referring to the context of the original question, which was not asking about the popular sense of the term. In the popular sense, there is no doubt that just about anything can be a fetish. I, however, was attempting to answer to the original topic of the thread.

Your example fits that popular sense perfectly once again.

Now I never said shoes could not be a fetish (there is quite a bit of documentation about heels and masturbation), just that the collecting thereof couldn't be overgeneralized as being a fetish. As for men having had to listen to penis-car talk, that argument is lost on me--I don't believe in equality in mediocrity (whether it comes from men or from women).

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well, now that you punch the word 'more' isn't it obvious that your point is irrelevant. A zebra looks more like a horse than a donkey, but a donkey still looks like a horse.

Secondly, you want to emphasize the psychoanalytic interpretation of the word 'fetish' over the more loose and popular sense, but it isn't clear that the loose and popular sense is not now the more important one. And in that sense if one invests an object with importance because of some transference of sexual qualities, then it is a fetish. And in that sense the collecting of large numbers of shoes is very plausibly fetishistic.

When a man prefers to have his lover dress as a nurse, that is a fetish, even if he could come perfectly well without her dressing up. That is how most people now use the term.

BTW I have nothing invested in whether shoes are or are not fetish objects but I think your arguments to the contrary are just not convincing. And hey, how long have men had to put up with women claiming that cars are penis substitutes? It is nice to have the shoe on the other foot for a change (so to speak!).

Go back and read the first page to get an idea of the context of this conversation.

 

[Liar]

People, I said this in the last thread on the sbject, and i say it again: Step off the Marx train.

Fetish is not sexual. A fetish is any inanimate object believed to have powers beyond its physical form. Either through symbolism (like money) or magic (like totems, crucifixes et al), Marx's use of the word is not sexual and to derive sexuality conclusions from it due to a shared word is fallacious.

Fetish paraphenilia is sexual. That's Freud and the lads. And the word is here used as a metaphor. They use the word as a methaphor for the effect a fetish has on the fetishist. A fetishist doesn't have to believe the object in question is any more than the object itself. It still turns him on.

 

[Eluard]

Find it irrelevant if you wish, the reason I had the word in bold was because I was sarcastically answering your asking if I was saying one item couldn't look like two things. I just thought the answer should fit the question.

Yes, CN, I got why you were emphasizing the word, but the point still stands: it is just irrelevant if shoes are more like feet than penises if the reason for the affection for them is that they are also like penises!!

I take the point about the proper psychoanalytic meaning of the term, but under that meaning almost nothing that is called a fetish object (by most people nowadays) would actually be one. The original claim is only interesting if one insists on the meaning of the term as redefined by psychoanalysts. Then the entire claim rests on the dubious authority of psychoanalysis and its pretense of being a science of human nature.

Is that not a compromise that we can agree on?

 

[CeriseNoire]

Yes, CN, I got why you were emphasizing the word, but the point still stands: it is just irrelevant if shoes are more like feet than penises if the reason for the affection for them is that they are also like penises!!

I take the point about the proper psychoanalytic meaning of the term, but under that meaning almost nothing that is called a fetish object (by most people nowadays) would actually be one. The original claim is only interesting if one insists on the meaning of the term as redefined by psychoanalysts. Then the entire claim rests on the dubious authority of psychoanalysis and its pretense of being a science of human nature.

Is that not a compromise that we can agree on?

I never disagreed. I just said we weren't discussing the same thing.

 

[Eluard]

Go back and read the first page to get an idea of the context of this conversation.

Thanks Stella, but I have been following it from the beginning. I may not seem to have gotten it but I really have, I promise.

 

[Eluard]

I never disagreed. I just said we weren't discussing the same thing.

Ah well, I agree about that. But I also thought thought we were having one of those stimulating dinner party arguments as to which thing we should be discussing.

 

[Eluard]

People, I said this in the last thread on the subject, and i say it again: Step off the Marx train.

Fetish is not sexual. A fetish is any inanimate object believed to have powers beyond its physical form. Either through symbolism (like money) or magic (like totems, crucifixes et al), Marx's use of the word is not sexual and to derive sexuality conclusions from it due to a shared word is fallacious.

Fetish paraphenilia is sexual. That's Freud and the lads. And the word is here used as a metaphor. They use the word as a methaphor for the effect a fetish has on the fetishist. A fetishist doesn't have to believe the object in question is any more than the object itself. It still turns him on.

The modern popular sense now seems to be a fusion of these two. Since I find Marxism as empty as psychoanalysis I am more than happy to step off of both trains.

 

[CeriseNoire]

Ah well, I agree about that. But I also thought thought we were having one of those stimulating dinner party arguments as to which thing we should be discussing.

Here I am trying to be dry and pouty, and you had to go and make me chuckle.