People ofen draw an arbitrary line between “normal” and “abnormal” sexual behaviour. However, just as in medicine we tend to define disease in terms of harm rather than disgust, the same should be extended to sexual normality. In the mid 90s, Dr Feelgood ran a sex-advice talk show across Australia. What impressed me was how she dealt with callers who’d ask her “is this normal?”. Her answer: normal is a statistical term based on the frequency of certain behaviours — it has nothing to do with whether something is fine to fantasise about (or to perform).
The word fetish is 1 weapon in the arsenal used to stigmatise ickiness. While fetish has a technical definition (attraction to objects not usually considered sexual) it’s used more broadly to describe anything considered unacceptable. Often with the implication that sex is something dirty, that “the fetishist is going too far”. Something is only considered a fetish if not too many people practice it.
Scratch that — if society agrees to believe not many people practice it. Reality’s different. Example: a 1985 study found 33% of women (50% of men) had sexual fantasies of tying up their partner. If this is accurate this makes bondage (at least as fantasy) too common to be dismissed as a fetish.
Also by marginalising desires we’re in effect endorsing a status quo that isn’t benign. An alien who comes to earth might say society has an anorexia fetish, or a white skin fetish). Note that here the alien is actually using the harm principle to judge what a fetish is, since the prominence of these fetishes harms people directly.
Medicalising sexual desires is (1) restrictive of freedom (2) an implicit endorsement of “standard” desires (3) a collosal waste of time. We wouldn’t say a heterosexual female has a “fetish for men” would we? And it’s easy to see in this case how it dehumanises the person. The fact that a preference is uncommon shouldn’t make us pathologise it, unless it harms someone. From a certain perspective there are no fetishes. Just preferences (of varying frequency) that may or may not be harmful.
7 comments ↓
Just caught up on this series on sex. Fantastic stuff.
I think the official definition of a fetish is pretty well accepted. But I agree it’s somewhat dependent on society. Most fetishes, e.g. foot fetishes or light bulb fetishes, don’t seem too dangerous to me.
A gray area for me (and one you might want to post about in this series) is racial fetishes. Is jungle fever a fetish, or just preference, or what?
My understanding of fetishism has always been that it’s a result of boredom and desensitisation. Bland sex simply just stops being interesting or enough so people start to experiment. It’s interesting to note, as you’ve mentioned, that fetishes are no longer only about objects. It could be having sex in public or talking dirty.
I read the psychoanalytic approach on wiki and I guess there are people who have fetishes very early on, before they’re sick of ‘normal’ sex. Association makes sense, but that means it’s something that is deep in your subconscious and is not a ‘choice’ but rather an ingrained urge.
I guess there is some psychological line between experimentation and addiction. The only harm I see is where it becomes such a strong addiction that it begins to interfere with that person’s life, work, relationships, etc. E.g. someone who has an orgasm every time they scroll a computer mouse or a husband who won’t have sex with his wife unless she pees on him first.
Thanks Samurai Scientist — I agree I haven’t thought about racial fetishes, it is an interesting one. I’ll probably do a racism segment one month. I think it’s hard to argue that a preference for a particular race is immoral since
(1)all interaction including sex excludes a myriad other possibilities by its mere existence so it’s not like anyone is being more discriminatory than someone who is attracted to many races
(2)it makes little sense to consider people to have chosen what to be attracted to
But yes there is a more complicated interaction between this and more obviously harmful examples of racism.
Alex — even if something interferes with someone’s life we can argue about the extent to which you can harm your own life within the realm of morality. It’s definitely not recommended but if someone is making an informed choice then I don’t think it can be condemned (of course at some point they may simply be in the grips of their addiction).
And yes I think many get sick of “normal” sex because society tends to portray a very bland patriarchal type of sex as normal.
So you’re saying that as long as a person is only harming himself/herself then we have no moral right to intervene? You did mention before that someone may become a burden and hence cause harm to others. I don’t think this is so far-fetched. Not only can personal addiction become a burden on social/medical services, but I’d say that it can have negative effects on other people in that person’s life. E.g. a doctor whose fetish results in him losing his job. This could harm his clients, family, friends, etc.
Also, what about fines for not wearing seat-belts? Would you say that this is immoral because its only function is to prevent harm to the individual?
I guess all I was saying is that you can make a reasonable argument for the right to harm oneself (even if we end up coming up with boundaries).
To take an extreme case, if someone who is clearly sane wants to commit suicide I don’t think we have the right to stop them.
I guess I was only mentioning the argument not making it — will have to think about the actual details at some point.
hmm I have a much more neutral definition of fetish, and see it used that way all the time, i.e. to mean simply an unusual sexual desire, with the idea that every one has fetishes, i.e. its simply the part of the sex response that varies more. But I guess from the traditional standpoint variation is bad in of itsself.
Yes, the two meanings (descriptive and normative) kinda overlap where it’s hard to tell which one’s being used — maybe that’s the point, sometimes people say it in a neutral way when they mean to pass negative judgement (and vice versa)
Leave a Comment