DamianaRaven wrote:Tesseracts wrote:People with fetishes are capable of regarding partners as human.
I'm sorry I overlooked this part of your post, or I'd have agreed with it. It wasn't my intention to suggest that all fetishes are insatiable hornmonsters incapable of love and emotional intimacy. It is, however, my observation as an expert in human perversions, that a fetish - particularly one of an uncommon and specific nature like limb amputation - can throw a hell of a monkey wrench in someone's sociosexual life.
A fetish is not the same thing as a kink. Fetishes are rather obsessive by nature so instead of merely being turned on by amputees, a
true fetishist cannot achieve arousal, much less a climax, without the stimulation or fantasy somehow involving a missing limb. Would you honestly want to date a man like that? Frankly, I would not, even if I'd lost a limb. There are a shitload of men out there who would be into me because I don't have any teeth - I wouldn't really want to be with someone who was fixated on just that. Fellatio is more of a courtesy than a pleasure for me, y'know? It's not really a "comfort" to know that there are men who would still fuck me if I were damaged in some specific fashion. I already know that so long as I have a (mostly) intact vagina somewhere on my body, there'll always be a fella willing to fuck it for me. I guess it's a good thing, but there are some creepy implications all over that reality.
Alright, so I missed this one the first time through this thread, So for starters, I don't think you're using all these words correctly. Granted, I'm not able to find super great, solid definitions for them. So let's start with that wiki page on sex fetishes I linked in my last past.
Wikipedia wrote:Sexual fetishism or erotic fetishism is a sexual focus on a nonliving object or nongenital body part.[1] The object of interest is called the fetish; the person who has a fetish for that object is a fetishist.[2]
A sexual fetish may be regarded as a non-pathological aid to sexual excitement, or as a mental disorder if it causes significant psychosocial distress for the person or has detrimental effects on important areas of their life.[1][3] Sexual arousal from a particular body part can be further classified as partialism.[4]
While medical definitions restrict the term sexual fetishism to objects or body parts,[1] fetish can also refer to sexual interest in specific activities in common discourse.[5]...
In common parlance, the word fetish is used to refer to any sexually arousing stimuli, not all of which meet the medical criteria for fetishism.[5] This broader usage of fetish covers parts or features of the body (including obesity and body modifications), objects, situations and activities (such as smoking or BDSM).[5] Paraphilias such as urophilia, necrophilia and coprophilia have been described as fetishes.[6]
So first off, we should note that the word
fetish is used differently in a
medical context than it often is in
common usage. I think this is important to note because I'm not sure that everyone in this thread is using it the same way. The other important thing to note here, and Tess already pointed this out, is that a fetish is not necessarily problematic. However, I'll touch on that more after another wiki quote.
Wikipedia wrote:Originally, most medical sources defined fetishism as a sexual interest in non-living objects, body parts or secretions. The publication of the DSM-III in 1980 changed that by excluding arousal from body parts in its diagnostic criteria for fetishism. In 1987, a revised edition of the DSM-III (DSM-III-R) introduced a new diagnosis for body part arousal, called partialism. The DSM-IV retained this distinction.[6] Martin Kafka argued that partialism should be merged into fetishism because of overlap between the two conditions,[6] and the DSM-5 subsequently did so in 2013.[1] The ICD-10 definition is still limited to non-living objects.[3]
I just want to make another quick point here about how I wasn't able to find a super solid definition of fetish. Not that what I found isn't useful, because it is, but it is good to note that the DSM and ICD have different definitions of fetishes. Since partialism was mentioned, I'll bring that back up again in a moment.
Wikipedia wrote:The ICD-10 defines fetishism as a reliance on non-living objects for sexual arousal and satisfaction. It is only considered a disorder when fetishistic activities are the foremost source of sexual satisfaction, and become so compelling or unacceptable as to cause distress or interfere with normal sexual intercourse.[3] The ICD's research guidelines require that the preference persists for at least six months, and is markedly distressing or acted on.[26]
Under the DSM-5, fetishism is sexual arousal from nonliving objects or specific nongenital body parts, excluding clothes used for cross-dressing (as that falls under transvestic disorder) and sex toys that are designed for genital stimulation.
In order to be diagnosed as fetishistic disorder, the arousal must persist for at least six months and causes significant psychosocial distress or impairment in important areas of their life. In the DSM-IV, sexual interest in body parts was distinguished from fetishism under the name partialism (diagnosed as Paraphilia NOS), but it was merged with fetishistic disorder for the DSM-5.[1]
The ReviseF65 project has campaigned for the ICD diagnosis to be abolished completely to avoid stigmatizing fetishists.[27] Sexologist Odd Reiersøl argues that distress associated with fetishism is often caused by shame, and that being subject to diagnosis only exacerbates that. He suggests that, in cases where the individual fails to control harmful behavior, they instead be diagnosed with a personality or impulse control disorder.[27]
So this is back to the point I wanted to bring up earlier, and that being that having a fetish in and of itself is not necessarily an issue, and it doesn't make any sense to paint fetishes as intrinsically problematic. Again, Tess mentioned this already, but you can treat a person pretty fucking shitty, both in terms of your sexual relationship and life in general, without having a fetish. On the flip side, someone can have one or more fetishes, even very strong fetishes, and still treat a person with dignity and respect. Just because a person appeals to one of your fetishes doesn't mean you can't always treat them as a person, the two aren't mutually exclusive. For people who's fetishes are, for whatever reason, problematic to their sexual relationships, or their life in other ways, or for whom their fetish causes significant psychological distress, that is classed as
fetishistic disorder. That distinction may seem small, but I think it is a very important one, as it draws a very clear line between a fetish and a fetishistic disorder, and it's not based on the fetish being present, or what the fetish is (save for a small few such as pedophilia, rape, and zoophilia), but on
how the fetish affects the person's life. Point being, a person can have a fetish and still have a healthy relationship with their partner.
Now, since i mentioned it real quick, let's just define partialism.
Wikipedia (NSFW) wrote:Partialism is sexual interest with an exclusive focus on a specific part of the body.[1][2][3]
Partialism is categorized as a fetishistic disorder in the DSM-5 of the American Psychiatric Association if it is not focused on genitals and causes significant psychosocial distress for the person or has detrimental effects on important areas of their life. In the DSM-IV, it was considered a separate paraphilia (not otherwise specified), but was merged into fetishistic disorder by the DSM-5.[1] Individuals with partialism sometimes describe the anatomy of interest to them as having equal or greater erotic attraction for them as do the genitals.[4]
I'm going to set aside the part about if it's considered a separate entity from fetishistic disorder or not (though for the record, I agree with the current DSM classification of it as part of fetishistic disorder), since the main point here is once again the bolded part: It's not intrinsically a problem, and it's only an issue if it causes psychological distress or a negative effect on important areas of a person's life. This is the same point I was making about fetishes.
Now since the word kink was mentioned, let's define that one real quick.
Wikipedia wrote:In human sexuality, kinkiness or kinky (adjective), is a colloquial term used to describe unconventional sexual practices, concepts or fantasies. The term derives from the idea of a "bend" (cf. a "kink") in one's sexual behaviour, to contrast such behaviour with "straight" or "vanilla" sexual mores and proclivities.
The term "kink" has been claimed by some who practice sexual fetishism as a term or synonym for their practices, indicating a range of sexual and sexualistic practices from playful to sexual objectification and certain paraphilias.Kink sexual practices go beyond what are considered conventional sexual practices as a means of heightening the intimacy between sexual partners. Some draw a distinction between kink and fetishism, defining the former as enhancing partner intimacy, and the latter as replacing it.[1] Because of its relation to "normal" sexual boundaries, which themselves vary by time and place, the definition of what is and is not kink varies widely as well.
So you may notice that this article isn't exactly up to wiki's standards. Thing is, do a google and you won't find a great, solid definition of what is considered a kink. You'll note that (just like fetish), kink's definition varies a bit, though it's much more loosely defined.
Since I spent a good chunk of time talking about definitions (hopefully no-one lost sight of the main point of my post), I'll define how I tend to use these words, as best I can in agreement with what I can gather on their definitions.
Kink: A non-typical sexual practice. Anything other than vanilla sex.
Fetish: Sexual arousal from non-genital body parts, objects, acts, or situations.
Fetishistic Disorder: A fetish that causes psychological distress and/or negative effects in a person's life (especially, but not limited to, their sex life).
So you may notice that I use the word kink in a very broad context, and that any kind of fetish and fetishistic disorder both fall under them. A fetish is basically a turn on for a person, excluding genitals. A fetishistic disorder is only for when a person's fetish causes issues in their life, as there's nothing wrong with having or indulging in a fetish in and of themselves.
DamianaRaven wrote:A fetish is not the same thing as a kink. Fetishes are rather obsessive by nature so instead of merely being turned on by amputees, a true fetishist cannot achieve arousal, much less a climax, without the stimulation or fantasy somehow involving a missing limb.
Just in case it got lost in all that, this is the part I'm disagreeing with. It seems to me that you're defining a "true fetishist" as someone with a "fetishistic disorder." I'll grant that not all those terms are defined as well as I'd like, but I'm not seeing anything that agrees with this usage. Instead I'm seeing misuse of the word, and a maligning of fetishists.
And to be clear, while I find the idea of a person having a fetish for someone missing a limb pretty weird, and kinda creepy, I don't think it's necessarily a problem. I only consider it an issue if it: a). Meets the criteria for fetishistic disorder b). Causes the person to mistreat the amputee for whom they have a fetish (which arguably could fall under point A, but I felt was important enough to warrant a mention anyway).