//riot of disorder::

This topic is to ask people the question-

Are fetishes an acceptable human behavior?

Are fetishes part of the moral priniciple of our society?

Do you yourself have any fetishes?

Now, begin the debating!!

Loren Pechtel

I have no moral problems with fetishes.

Alonzo Fyfe

There are no intrinsic values -- the only value that exists is relationship between states of affairs and desires.

Still, whether there is a moral problem with a fetish depends on whether the fetish, itself, fulfills or thwarts desires.

Violent fetishes and those that involve others against their will (even voyeurism, exhibitionism) tend to thwart the desires of others when imposed on them without consent. These, then, are morally questionable fetishes.

Fetishes that do not involve others, or only involve others with their consent, can still be questioned according to whether they fulfill or thwart the desires of the agent. In this sense, a fetish may fall into the same category as alcoholism or a drug addiction. The behavior, even if private, is not good for the agent (e.g., autoasphyxiation, masochism).

Though it may be argued that, where the fetish concerns only the well-being of the individual, that it is not a 'moral' question; the concept of morality is concerned only if the behavior adversely affects others. The issue of the self-regarding virtue (e.g., thrift, prudence, fitness) is not settled among moral philosophers.

Felstorm

Here is my two denarius on fetish lifestyles.

I think one can go to a very simple guideline that can be applied to any sexual behaviour. To quote Aleister Crowley, "An it harm none, that shall be the whole of the law." ~ Liber vel Helios(?)

From my personal experience, everyone has some kind of sexually oriented fetish that they fantasize about, secretly if not openly with lovers. Fetishes tend to be fantasies that people feel so strongly about that they feel compelled to act them out. Those that are aquainted with BDSM communities tend to see the more extremes of these enacted fantasies. But as long as there is no true malice in intent I see no moral problems with people living out their sexual fantasies.

But seeing as there are many many different fetishes one would have to take them on a point by point examination to determine what would pose more of a risk to life and limb than other activities. Autoeroticasphixiation(sp?) is an obviously dangerous activity, people can and do die engaging in this activity. Autoeroticasphyxiation is one the most practiced "closet" fetishes that people engage in for the sheer fact that lightheaded giddiness from breathcontrol enhances the sensations of orgasm.

And then you have the plain old weird feitshes that arent' particularly harmful but are just odd and don't fit in with the "norm' of sexual lifestyles for the most of us. The latex/rubber fetish is one of these. People, particularly women like this because skintight latex suits are quite stimulating to the whole body and not just the genitalia. One really has to experience to know why it is done. People often do these things, because they just plain feel good to them. And I don't really mind that. It's not harming anyone else, well except for people that have oversensitive, narrow minds and a repressed libido.

Bondage, Discipline, Sadism, and Masochism are each fetishes in their own rights. You can have a person that is into bondage and forced kinky sex, but is not masochistic or sadistic. I think that sadism, basically the derivation of sexual pleasure from someone elses pain, forms a certain set of ethical questions that is not easily answered. It has a potential to be greatly abused and puts someone elses' personal well-being at risk.

trekbette

I'm not really sure what you mean. Do they exist? Yes. Are they (on a whole) bad? No. The idea of fetishes being "weird" or "wrong" is not appropriate. What is normal? Something I like and consider normal may not be what you like. Does that make it bad. No. There is no such thing as normal, just different.

I think that being sexually attracted to a specific object or act is fine. The line becomes drawn when any of two things happen:

1. Someone gets hurt (and not in the fun, spanky way).
2. The fetish interferes with the everyday living of your life. (Example, if you want to live in a cage and be treated like a dog 24/7, you had better find/be a wealthy partner or the bills are not going to get paid.)
3. I think it becomes a problem when you cannot get excited without the stimulus of the fetish, like a someone with a foot-fetish refusing to have penetration unless they can see or touch their partners feet. If your fetish means that you can have both the GIVE and TAKE of sex, than the maybe a problem.

I read a book by Gloria Brame, "Come Hither", and that gives several explanations as to what fetishes are. If you are really interested in this subject go to gloriabrame.com or get her book.

___________________________
Or are you asking if we have fetishes? I like tall men (unfortunately to the point of problem #3 above), hands/gloves and a few others I'd rather not mention here.

Calzaer

First, a few general comments:

I'd have to say "Fetishes! Yay!", but that's just me.

Felstorm:
I'm relatively sure that AC said "Do as you wilt, that shall be the whole of the law". The "an it harm none" bit was added by the Wiccans later.

It's two words. Auto-erotic asphyxiation.

While it does have the potential to be greatly abused, it CAN be(and usually is) practiced safely. Or at least as safely as anything else. The motto of the community is, after all, "safe, sane, and consentual" (which, in my opinion, is a bit like the gay community adopting the motto "nice, normal, and not after your children", but it's apparently necessary).

**

Feel free to ask me any questions... I feel I should be able to provide some practical answers, being as I've identified as a submissive masochist for a couple years now. The psychological aspect is mostly beyond me though, I'm afraid.

lisarea

Actually, I've heard that this is the technical definition of 'fetish.' Unfortunately, I can't trivially find confirmation, and am too lazy to sort through all the porn looking for it.

But as I recall, a fetish is a sexual obsession with an object, attribute, behavior or body part not normally associated with sexuality, WITHOUT which the fetishist cannot become aroused.

Which brings us to the obvious question: Who gets to define what is and is not normally associated with sexuality? For example, the foot fetishist example might make sense, but would it extend to someone who, say, were incapable of being aroused by someone who had no nose or no arms? We just lump this stuff into some vaguely defined 'attraction' thing, but what is the fundamental difference between, say, being attracted to and needing to touch someone's feet and being attracted to and stroking their hair? I expect there are few people who don't have some kind of fetish or another, by those definitions.

Even assuming some definition of 'normally associated with sexuality' that includes only primary and secondary sex characteristics, who of us can HONESTLY say that's all we require? I mean, even as far as sex toys and such go, I'd imagine that most if not all people tend to 'fill in the blanks,' as it were. And if they don't, well, then. I dunno. Maybe that's a fetish, too.

I guess the whole question reminds me a little of the definition of mental health as having the same diseases as one's neighbors.

Aradia

This is the definition used in psychotherapy, but most people don't use it in that way (as in this thread).

Oh, umm, I'll go with the person who said "Fetish! Yay!"

Calzaer

I'm still trying to figure out the clinical difference between a "fetish" and a "paraphilia".

trekbette

To me, and I may be wrong, a fetish is a step below an obsession.

To have a fetish means something, a ice cream cone (for example) turns you on and you enjoy having sex with it.

An obsession means you cannot have sex without the ice cream cone.

The inability to have sex without the object of your obsession involved in some way seems rather limiting. Maybe I'm wrong.

Having a fetish is okay, while being obsessed seems to make someone a less-than well-rounded and therefore less than optimum sexual partner.

However, I may be focusing on the semantics instead of the issue at hand.


Ponder this concept--being a masochist without being submissive. What do you think?