MetaChat - Fetishes ain't what they use to be

MetaChat is an informal place for MeFites to touch base and post, discuss and chatter about topics that may not belong on MetaFilter. Questions? Check the FAQ. Please note: This is important.

04 August 2007

Fetishes ain't what they use to be besides the whole bastardized use of the word.→[More:] i know i'm way too tired to be going out so i'm into trying to figure something out.

First a minor rant:
Shoe fetish, really? Are you sexually aroused by your own shoes?
Back in '93 or '94, when i was trying to get away with using the term "food porn" (which i hadn't gotten from anywhere), i clarified it was because of "obscenely good food."
It was a play on words because of the food photography and descriptions from the people i was trying to interview, and a hook, of course.
But now everything is a fetish or porn or a whore for something which is such the wrong term--
i'm not talking about all pleasure being equated as sexual arousal despite the fact it seems to be the only way people can express their excitement or sensual enjoyment of a thing any more--
Orgasmic has been devalued as in any way descriptive, especially since some people don't seem to be having any better or satisfying than a cookie--
Use your words, or just use words! There's lots of them!

phew, ok where was i?
Oh, yeah, fetishes--

i've been reading Savage Love on and off all day and i'm asking:
is every single aspect of attraction and arousal now considered a "fetish" or is it the opposite where so many things seem so prevalent now that a lot of things aren't even generally considered "fetishes" any more?

Has the actual definition of fetish changed with its rampant misuse from a clinical term like obsession? And which way?
So all or nothing, people? Which way do you swing?

And while this isn't a fetish, i can disclosing something to you that you have collectively done to pleasure me right this moment:
i often download whatever music post and since finally restoring some music to my machine, i have had the thing on random play for hours to my great and eclectic delight. Thank you all
except for weretable who's maroon 5 and such i really had to dump sorry not my particular kink, thanks for The Kinks though, whoever!

post by: ethylene at: 20:25 | 68 comments

music posts and links unlistened to until some time much later and

Here's a source descriptor of fetish as it seems to mean, in which fetish

is most likely a subconscious, erotic response to a sexually charged fear. While most of us learn to live with and occasionally conquer our fears without eroticizing them, a number of us respond to sexual fears or traumas by incorporating them into our erotic imaginations.

And yet hairy men is considered a fetish? Or evening wear?

Ok, discuss as i go off to mix up cocktails and get properly attired--
*lights cigarette*

posted by ethylene 04 August | 20:33

What happened to preference?
When did preference run too kink?
When did kink run to fetish?
Did they or are they just all run together now under "turn ons"?
In the use or vernacular practical use or whatever.

Responses may be answered with fetish related stories.
Too muddled to muddle? i think i am as i lack a muddler.
Where's my mint smushing slave?

posted by ethylene 04 August | 20:41

By me, i mean. i'll tell a tale or a thoughtful comment or some such.

posted by ethylene 04 August | 20:43

I can't comment on the psychological definition of 'fetish,' (though I will point out that even that usage has to be a bastardization of the anthropological use of the word, meaning an object or creature believed to confer magical powers on the person who owned it), though I agree that everything porn/whore/orgasmic has become a tediously generic metaphor.

The reason I'm commenting is to say that I'm just....worn out on Dan Savage. He's been at this a long time. Ten or fifteen years ago, when I read his articles in the Phoenix, I admired his forthright openness and open, non-judgmental point of view. In those days, we really needed someone who could talk confidently about gay sex, fantasies, sex during menstruation, and any number of other odd, taboo, never-discussed-in-mainstream-media topics. He was hilarious and his voice was very fresh and very positive.

Today, I think he's among the most rigid, judgemental people out there -- if you don't comply with his personal philosophy of sexual health and sexual interaction, which has gradually become more extreme as he has dealt with stranger and stranger elements of the hobby-ization and commodification of sex in the past decade, you deserve for your partner to leave you in search of what they "need" -- as though sexual dimension were always and only the most important aspect of human relationships. It's just not as important as all that for most people - just go through a major personal upheaval like the death of a parent or child or the loss of your job and inability to get better employment, and your taste for vinyl falls into serious perspective.

His insistence that we should all view just about any behavior as normal (I think there's one column at where he reluctantly draws the line at two things, which might be sex with dead people and sex with animals) seems pretty extreme to me. People's odd quirks are none of my business and I hope they have lots and lots of fun with 'em, but 'normal' has a meaning, and a lot of what he writes about ain't it; I resent the implication that if I don't accept my partner's desire to get into [insert icky thing here] I'm a cold-hearted selfish bitch who deserves to die alone.

posted by Miko 04 August | 20:58

I dunno. I like "fetish" better than "turn-on." Is there a better word or phrase to describe a persistent and strong attraction to something that most people aren't attracted to?

And I think it's just a lot more convenient to say "I have a fetish for x" than "I find x particularly arousing; indeed, I may be among a minority who find x so arousing, or even arousing at all." I think that when a peculiar (mis)use of words catches on in the vernacular, it's most likely filling a linguistic void (at least initially).

posted by treepour 04 August | 21:07

I'm into X?

posted by Miko 04 August | 21:10

i know what you mean, Mikom but i wasn't asking about him.
i agree he has gotten more opinionated and part of it is to be blunt and amusing in his language but where he does actually draw the line is "a fetish too far" where it's all about consent and risk and consequences, not that he doesn't accidentally cross the line, but he usually let's people chasitize him in their own words.

And sometimes he's just fuckin' funny.
i haven't read him in ages which is why there was so much to read.

But that's the thing, treepour. What was fetish is now possible preference or merely turn on and that's not the same thing, so when people have actual fetishes i think they lose the line. the line of consent and knowledge and communication.

posted by ethylene 04 August | 21:11

I actually have a fetish. Several, actually.

No, I'm not going to tell you what they are.

Yes, the word is overused. I am not doing so. ;)

posted by loquacious 04 August | 21:13

You already have, lo. Often.

posted by ethylene 04 August | 21:14

And i think fetish object to sexual fetish is a pretty understandable transition of meaning.

posted by ethylene 04 August | 21:16

Knowing that something reliably arouses someone is if nothing else handy, as is what if anything reliably arouses you.
But while corsets and heels and leather, etc. etc. etc. are now almost commonplace, it's not the same as things that should involve consenting knowledge but they occupy the same spaces and places, linguistically and more, so people get for lack of a better word confused.

posted by ethylene 04 August | 21:21

Barely tangential question i've had for ages:
If rape is suppose to be down in incidence now due to better education of boys, does that mean before they just thought it was "okay"?

posted by ethylene 04 August | 21:24

I'm into X?

I'm in to Y'ing your Z.

If rape is suppose to be down in incidence now due to better education of boys...

It's probably got more to do with availability of internet pr0n than education. Is our children learning?

posted by pieisexactlythree 04 August | 21:28

Now, loq, i won't repeat your one oft repeated fetish and if you want have this comment deleted but i can see how yours falls into the "eroticizing of fear" quite obviously. The question i have is if it is a fetish as in necessary for functionality or an extreme preference or kink.

posted by ethylene 04 August | 21:32

Pie, i think the widespread porn is why fetish seems to be swinging so extremely side to side.
Just because someone wears a corset doesn't automatically mean they are into breathplay or domination or rape or public sex or whatever but so some kids, especially learning about sex first from the internet, amongst several outcomes it can create fetishes or make them think it's all the same. Everyone wants rough unlubricated anal just as much as a touch of the nipple, of course!

posted by ethylene 04 August | 21:35

Early exposure to sex can be very traumatizing depending what is going on, but the incidence of young people thinking some practices are automatically okay makes them wonder why they don't like it, try it, traumatize themselves by being what they assume is "normal now"--
okay, enough of me, on with the jokes, else i'll tell some story of some sort, not nearly as kinky as you thinky.

posted by ethylene 04 August | 21:40

People seem to be using "fetish" these days to mean nothing more than "predeliction." In my experience, stating in the right tone that you have a prediliction for something works just fine. For that matter, so does "I would really like for you to [blankety blankety blank]."

There are plenty of people with whom this won't work, but they're probably not going to grant my your weirdo desires anyway.

I think of myself as being pretty open to new experiences; if someone tells me they like or enjoy blankety blank, I'll view the request differently than if they tell me they have a fetish for blankety blank.

As for Dan Savage, I enjoy reading him occasionally, and I think "occasionally" has been the key to the fun I get from reading him.

I'm glad there's a sex columnist who doesn't pathologize the behavior that occurs out on the tail end of the bell curve, though I agree that "normal" has a meaning, and that meaning isn't "whatever consenting adults do in private." Just like "abnormal" doesn't mean "sick."

(Don't get me wrong: whatever adults agree to do together is A) none of my business and incidentally B) fine by me, especially if they don't tell me about it in detail over coffee at work the following morning.)

I guess I've always interpreted "game" (from the oft-repeated "good, giving, and game") to mean not that one agrees to every request, but that one considers every request*, however wacky or unusual, for a bit instead of dismissing it out of hand.

*so long as it can be accomplished consensually.

posted by Elsa 04 August | 21:49

i completely agree.
My only thing with actual "fetish" is that it's so... confined, restricting...
eh, whatever.
Predelictions can be fun.
Frankly, finding someone with something to offer besides adequate sex isn't easy, but deprive people of adequate sex long enough...
Ok. Let me get a cocktail.

posted by ethylene 04 August | 21:56

I agree with you, Elsa, but in recent years Dan Savage has said, almost verbatim, that "game" doesn't mean just considering, it means always delivering. He's got some column from the last year or two that says something like 'if you aren't a total whore for your partner, giving them everything they have asked for, they're entitled to go looking for it elsewhere regardless of your partnership agreement.' I was really surprised when I read that. He seemed to think that if you exercised your right to say 'I've thought about your idea, and it's interesting, but I just am not up for it,' that was the same as giving your partner a de facto pass to find someone who would, regardless of your partnership agreement.

Which I just don't agree with.

posted by Miko 04 August | 22:03

Well, I've already had a cocktail, so I'll tell a little story while you freshen yours.

One of the worst consensual sexual experiences of my life was with a longtime partner who considered himself pretty accomplished in the Art Of Love. I asked him to try something outside our usual repetoire, and he balked.

Which is fine. Everyone has their boundaries; his awere different from mine.

Then, still naked together in bed, he started mocking me for wanting to try something he didn't want to do.

It doesn't really matter what I asked for was the tamest Cosmo level of kink. Even if I'd asked for something a little --- heck, a lot! --- farther out there, he had no business poking fun at me. Only a deep affection kept me from blurting out the truth: I was trying to shake up his entirely too predictable routine, which was boring me silly.

His attempt to make me ashamed of a simple request caused me to look more closely, and I saw how threatened he was by any display of my sexuality.

We didn't last long after that.

on preview: Wow, Miko, I hadn't read that, no doubt due to my sporadic reading of Savage in general. That's... um, well, it's crappy, and I've been involved in the whole spectrum of partnership agreements.

posted by Elsa 04 August | 22:05

Here, I think I found the column which put me off him finally.

posted by Miko 04 August | 22:09

So i had this ex who would sometimes ask to rub my feet.
i'd let him but i wondered if he had some actual thing for feet or thought that all women wanted foot rubs.
Either way, it didn't matter, because he sucked at it.
i think his mom was even studying reflexology.
Seems so wrong.

Miko, it's more that if this thing is so important to the person then it's going to continue to be an issue, If you don't want to fulfill this need, then you might as well leave because it will be the deal breaker.

posted by ethylene 04 August | 22:10

Good story and decorously generic, Elsa. I also don't like it when I suggest something once, enjoying it playfully, and then it seems as though it's supposed to become one of my standbys, you know 'that thing you like." A lot of this stuff is quite dependent on where I am, where the relationship is, what's going on outside of bed, what I've been reading lately, all sorts of things. Shaming your partner - yeah, never good. But gently saying "That's not the mood I'm in" -- that should really be all right, yeah?

posted by Miko 04 August | 22:16

That one also has the "fetish too far" comment.
A later one than that is what disturbs me in the "not knowing the line" area, in which a woman was violently raped but never called it rape and assumed he might not respond to her because he openly enjoys sodomy.
It's so sad in so many ways.

No, especially a considered no, means no.
But never means never and shouldn't pretend to be no.

posted by ethylene 04 August | 22:17

I don't agree that it's a deal breaker. In Elsa's tale, it was not the act but the attitude that was the deal breaker. In my view, people get into relationships for a lot of reasons. Some people feel that their own sexual exploration and identity is very, very important, and that they'd have to leave if they couldn't indulge their fetish. But you know, not everyone honestly cares that much about getting off. For some people, other reasons to get into/stay in a partnership are more powerful. I think Savage's reading of relationships is one-dimensional.

posted by Miko 04 August | 22:18

I agree, eth, it's good to know what your 'nevers' are. But another thing that can happen is that you don't know them until you encounter them. You try something in a 'game' way and then say 'never again' - how could you have known before trying it? If it was that important to your partner, how could they not reveal it earlier?

I'd just like to see someone as influential as Savage embracing a more balanced negotiation than "she won't? Out the door!"

posted by Miko 04 August | 22:22

It's not about a single act or incident, it's about a relationship. The give and take of whole relationships, not just sex. He tells people on both sides they're being unreasonable.

He also included this link when he was corrected to open adoptions.
i really didn't want to talk about him or his column, i just happened to be reading it and that's why it occurred to me to bring it up.
But i did want to quote some of his funny lines.

posted by ethylene 04 August | 22:23

Yes, how could they not reveal it earlier?
That's the point. You have to if you want a lasting and whole relationship.

posted by ethylene 04 August | 22:25

But then sometimes you don't want to get married, you just have amazingly compatible, companionable sex.
If someone decides the sex is so good it's a relationship, well there's a problem, but there is also a level of trust and commitment in a monogamous (or agreed perametered) relationship even if you never planned to "get married".
i think.

posted by ethylene 04 August | 22:28

so good it's a marriage oriented relationship

posted by ethylene 04 August | 22:29

You know i didn't know how very indescriminently trampy some people here thought i was until secret valentine's day, but actually i've made consistent use of a lone set of genitals besides my own for... years. Hmm. Wow.

posted by ethylene 04 August | 22:32

That's indiscriminantly and probably how i come off to some i guess. i dunno. Frankly, i don't care. i don't think i could change what anyone wants to think and i doubt i care to.

posted by ethylene 04 August | 22:35

There's a lot of space between "I need this, and I can't remain in a relationship with someone who won't allow me to seek this" and "I need this, so I'll sneak around to get it."

Years ago, I broke off a deeply loving relationship with someone who needed us to maintain an open relationship, at least on his side. After lots of thought and years of off-again, on-again heartache, I realized that I needed to be monogamous in any long-term relationship.

He gave me an ultimatum, and I broke off the sexual relationship, though we remained the closest of friends. If I had given the ultimatum and he had broken it off, that would have been just as reasonable.

ethylene points out a useful distinction between "no" and "never," just as Miko does between "Hey, wanna try _____?" and "_____'s my thing, now and forever!" I have a few nevers, and someday I may bump unexpectedly against some more, but I've always assumed (and granted to partners) the unspoken right to say no, even to a long-established practice, any old time. It doesn't even call for explanation.

posted by Elsa 04 August | 22:40

i also am making my seventh comment in a row unless someone beats me, which might be a record. And now i can't find my cigarettes.
i would stop smoking all together if it was a dealbreaker for someone i really cared about.
i think i'll pause to look for them and try to think of a good story or comment without just jumping into the gaping goatse.

Yay, Elsa.

posted by ethylene 04 August | 22:43

See, the fetish definition made me start thinking about predilections and preferences and why i or anyone might have them that i hadn't quite bothered to think about in that way before.
Why is an important question i need answered about many things.

posted by ethylene 04 August | 22:46

If someone had a strong predilection that i found less than neutral, it would be an issue. i'd need to know why and balance it out against how i felt about the person at that point.
i don't know if it's wise to be more graphic than we've been up to this point.
But this is why we have such a range of words.

posted by ethylene 04 August | 22:51

decorously generic, Elsa.

Yes, well... my weblog points here occasionally, and some of my family reads that. Trying to spare the feelings of a brother/sister, dontcha know.

If it was that important to your partner, how could they not reveal it earlier?

But just a sentence earlier, you acknowledge that it's easy not to know one's nevers until you encounter them. Isn't it just as possible not to know what might trigger a powerful positive reaction until you encounter it?

i really didn't want to talk about him or his column ... But i did want to quote some of his funny lines.

I urge you to do so!

Besides, I think I've been indiscreet enough for tonight. Unless you'd like to discuss... oh, never mind.

posted by Elsa 04 August | 22:52

Everyone is different at different times in their life and the relationship.
There was this one guy who though me bracing my foot against a wall was the kinkiest thing he'd ever experience. But then we were only about 20 or so at the time.

Ha, ok, Elsa. Let me think of something good.
You've been quite one of my favorite mehcatters in the last few days i've been on enough to read. Glad to have gotten to know you finally!

posted by ethylene 04 August | 22:54

so good it's a marriage oriented relationship

This is key. What the relationship is primarily about is kind of important. And even then, two people can disagree.

Some relationships are primarily about "We've found each other, we're happy, and we'd like to settle into monogamy and become a social institution. Our sexual needs are secondary to this much larger goal."

Other relationships may be about "We've found each other, our sexual proclivities match, and we're really into getting off together, so we're happy and we'll continue. If one day our sexual desires diverge, the shootin' match is over, because sex is of central importance in this partnership."

I think there are innumerable variations on the reasons people form relationships. That's why it's too easy, to me, to say to the world "If you need to see your partner dress up like a drum marshal and twirl a baton, they'd better do it, baby, or you get to say it's over."

posted by Miko 04 August | 22:55

Isn't it just as possible not to know what might trigger a powerful positive reaction until you encounter it?

Yes, definitely. But would it be worth breaking a relationship over the discovery, and the desire that this newly discovered interest be fulfilled? Like always - depends on the relationship.

I'm just saying, it doesn't depend on Dan Savage's hard-and-fast rule that you ALWAYS put out whatever your partner wants, or say sayonara.

posted by Miko 04 August | 22:58

Like always - depends on the relationship.

Bingo.

posted by Elsa 04 August | 23:04

There are some thing s you can't talk about without just being blunt, which is another thing he says often, soi can't really talk about anything without being somewhat TMI--
--and while i'd rather wait to see if another party at least says they're okay with it i don't feel like i should continue--

--but i will for Elsa. It's not a very extreme or uncommon tale but it's at hand so

This guy i was in a monogamous relationship with asked if i would be into anal at all. It wasn't that long into the relationship but--

--wait is it better to tell you about the guy who totally sucked in bed and never gave me an orgasm through out the years of drama and total bullshit but wanted to know why i never played with his butthole?

Miko, he doesn't have hard and fast rules except when he is talking about a deal breaker. Never and lies and lack of honesty. But he does fuck up and he does own up to fucking up, if not always in desperate broad proclamation.

posted by ethylene 04 August | 23:06

He also gives advice in what little one can except in say a one night stand or stranger sex and is quite blunt about opening anyone up to risk of any kind.

i haven't read him since last year and now i'm his present champion. Hi, you Savage!
Not you, Adam!

posted by ethylene 04 August | 23:08

can expect

You know Savage is not his real name?
The other one.

posted by ethylene 04 August | 23:09

I dunno, I read "complete and total whore for your partner" as a hard and fast rule. :)

posted by Miko 04 August | 23:11

Why is an important question i need answered about many things.

So you're saying you have a fetish for asking why?

posted by treepour 04 August | 23:13

If you are willing is another.
If they are worth it.
And to bother to consider.
And that sometimes it's not worth it.

And you can't judge him on whenever you stopped reading him. That's too mefi flame war.
i only think i can say anything with some certainly because i've been over nearly a year in a day.

posted by ethylene 04 August | 23:14

No, but i don't expect to take someone seriously when they don't even know why they believe or proclaim something irrefutably and refuse to wonder or consider why.

Pastgetti monster?

posted by ethylene 04 August | 23:15

I totally agree on the why

posted by Miko 04 August | 23:16

i don't feel like i should continue--

--but i will for Elsa.

Whoa! I like a juicy story --- who doesn't? --- but if you're hesitant at all, don't tell it.

In any case, I'm minutes away from handing over the laptop to The Fella, so I'll vanish into the night. This has been fun!

posted by Elsa 04 August | 23:17

Can i finish my anal sex story yet?

Or do we talk about why i ask why and why some people find that so ridiculously offensive?
"It just is!"

posted by ethylene 04 August | 23:17

Can i finish my anal sex story yet?

Do you really have to ask? Tell!

posted by Miko 04 August | 23:18

What was fetish is now possible preference or merely turn on and that's not the same thing, so when people have actual fetishes i think they lose the line. the line of consent and knowledge and communication.

Sorry, I'm not following . . . who doesn't use or have the benefit of consent/communication? The person with the fetish or the person having a sexual encounter with the fetishist? Wouldn't this only be the case for fetishists who attempt to hide/disguise their fetishes?

posted by treepour 04 August | 23:21

i'll cut to the end real quick--
too bad for graphic details!

--so then even though i'd never really had much inclination to before i really thought he'd probably enjoy anal sex because of the having a prostate thing, ya know, having one--

and i so wish i could find a clip really quick of Louis CK on Conan talking about his battle with himself in having to insert an opium enema--

--and he decided he didn't really care for anal sex very much after all--

--except i kept thinking how cute it would be for him to have one of those feathered butt plugs? with liek the big plumage?

It ends with him saying repeatedly when such things are brought up, actaully anything involving his butt:
"NOTHING'S GOING IN MY ASS!"
But with a smile.

posted by ethylene 04 August | 23:23

Treepour, everyone should be consenting.
Or it's NO.
The end.

posted by ethylene 04 August | 23:25

The Bees repeatedly tried to "get involved" during acts, right in that um, especially active area, and being curious and small--

She got shut out of the bedroom after that happened a few times.

Did i already say how the Bees has the cutest little teeny vagina? It's adorable.
That is so not in any way connected to any sex (besides hers), fetish or arousal, it's just a fact.

posted by ethylene 04 August | 23:30

Yeah, i've never really thought about pegging a guy before in any serious sexual way but i would have pegged him. Wanted to even.
And it was fun to bring it up but i think probably in part because
"NOTHING'S GOING IN MY ASS!"
but i'd do it.
Even after all that time, he never got to the mind blowing orgasms, although he thinks he has.

posted by ethylene 04 August | 23:33

i'll end all reference to this with i think a definite inclination to do him up the butt.
i'd be good exercise.

No, really.
*bows*

cigarette?

posted by ethylene 04 August | 23:36

That doesn't mean i'd peg just anyone and everyone, just that guy.

He really needs a good rogering on so many levels right now.

*blows

smoke*

posted by ethylene 04 August | 23:37

i wonder if Elsa's Fella is seeing this now.
*waves*

i'm amusing myself at least.

posted by ethylene 04 August | 23:39

NOT UP YOUR ASS

The smoke, i mean.
*puff*

posted by ethylene 04 August | 23:39

If it wasn't clear, nothing was ever inserted in the straight boy's rectum.

That's all that needs to be clear.

"Rectum? Nearly kilt 'im!"

posted by ethylene 04 August | 23:43

. . . who doesn't use or have the benefit of consent/communication? The person with the fetish or the person having a sexual encounter with the fetishist? Wouldn't this only be the case for fetishists who attempt to hide/disguise their fetishes?

Yep. NEXT!

posted by ethylene 04 August | 23:45

Btw, that doesn't mean pegging is out of the question, should the right conditions and props happen to coalesce.

Good night and for gassakes don't try the veal!

posted by ethylene 05 August | 01:54

Guess I shouldn't be posting after "Good night" but just want to clarify . . . I was never proposing that anything non-consensual is ok.

posted by treepour 05 August | 10:56

btw, the anal-curious (top and/or bottom, male and/or female) should read: Anal Pleasure & Health

posted by treepour 05 August | 11:03

Just to wander in during the ethylene posting mania to cheer Miko when she says she's tired (or words to that effect) of Dan Savage. I used to think the guy got it about half right, but now I can't even give him that. And despite all his claims to the contrary, I can't get past the conviction that he really doesn't... like women. At all.

I can dismiss him, but my son's friends read his column every week like gospel, and I find that a bit worrisome, for the reasons Miko touched on (the "hobbification" of sex), that kind of thing.

posted by jokeefe 05 August | 21:18

I can't get past the conviction that he really doesn't... like women. At all.

I have the same impression about him. Can't put my finger on why exactly, but yes.

This whole discussion makes me think of my mom, of all people. When I was thirty and considered myself unshockable she rendered me stumbling and speechless by saying matter-of-factly: "Of course, anything can be a sexual turn-on if you happen to be in the right frame of mind for it."

posted by tangerine 06 August | 14:13

← So, which one is ColdChef? || He doesn't get seriously injured. →

HOME || REGISTER || LOGIN