Talk:Sexual fetishism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Referring to:[edit]

Referring to:

As Freud described it in 1887, sexual fetishes in men are the result of childhood trauma regarding castration anxiety.

I believe that Freud did not start writing until 1900 (interpretation of dreams)

[I think he wrote before 1900 -- e.g. with Breuer, Anna O, etc. And his neurological model of the mind. It's true that IOD is the real birth of Psychology, a real watershed. JB].

The first to mention fetishism in a sexual context was Alfred Binet in 1887

BINET: ‘Du Fétichisme dans l’amour’ , Revue philosophique 1887

See also:

Yours Jan

Asian fetish?[edit]

Is the Asian fetish a true fetish, and should it be linked to from this article?

Sexual fetishism (lol) means arousal caused by an object or a body part. To be turned on by a person possessing certain physical characteristics (say, a tall person or a redhead) would qualify as a sexual fetish. A person who is aroused by people who possess the physical characteristics most commonly occurring in Han Chinese people,for example, would be very similar to someone who is attracted to redheads. Asia is the largest continent in the world. The peoples who live there or are decended from people who are indigenous to the area vary wildly in appearance. The traits possessed by most people from the ethnic group called 'Great Russians" don't look at all like people from the ethnic group commonly called "Dravidians". So, to call it an "Asian Fetish" is in itself ignorant. If you are sexually attracted to Ainu or Tibetans or whatever, then why not show respect to the people you find attractive and refer to them by the name of their cultural affiliation, rather than the generic term "Asian', which doesn't really mean much of anything, given the diversity present on this enormous continent? If you have a fetish for people possessing physical characteristics commonly found in Japanese people, then call it a Japanese fetish, not an Asian fetish. Wandering Star 04:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


I think the Jahsonic articles are taken from the Wikipedia. The Jahsonic article used to be a copy of the Wikipedia we see now, that claims Freud created the word 'fetishism', then the Wikipedia article was edited to include more history and to discuss Binet, then the Jahsonic article was corrected to reflect the new changes on the Wikipedia article... looks like someone has erased the corrected wikipedia article! ... and again is claiming that Freud was the creator of the concept of Fetishsm; but of course he wasn't, he was obsessed with studying anthropology, and that is where he got the term, and he just sexualized it (like he did with everything else he thought about, apparently).

I think this article on the history of the concept of sexual fetishism needs serious revamping, but I don't know enough history myself to do it. It would be wise for whomever makes these articles, to cite sources, that way, if some bozo comes along and erases something that is actually correct, it can be shown by the citations of the sources which version is most likely to be closer to the truth.

The two most striking problems I see with this article on sexual fetishism, aside from it missing a lot of history, are two statements it contains:

"male rats accustomed to having sex in a particular cage will have elevations of "pleasure-inducing chemicals in the brain" simply from being in the particular cage, even if a female or a female scent are not present. Sexual conditioning occurred. It has been hypothesized that human sexuality may similarly be tied to conditioning, and this may explain the phenomenon of sexual fetishism."

Behavioristic theories do not adquately explain fetishism; this is a gross jump from a bit of speculative data to a whole complex phenomena. A rat in a cage does not explain human fetishism, and the example cited above might be something else occuring other than what the observers speculate, for example, the rat might be having memories of sex in that cage, and when memories occur, the brain may produce the same chemicals that were created at the original experience; thus, the rat may not actually be sexually aroused even if it has elevated reproductive system chemicals in its body; it may simply be having a memory. Besides this other hypothesis I've just offered, equally plausible to the one given by the scientists, I really don't think that rats' sex, done for the purpose of reproducing, and humans' sex, done for many different purposes, are the same: We cannot understand humans by watching some rats in a cage.

The Behaviorist who wrote the article, goes on to say:

"This is consistent with the theory that fetishism derives from behavioural imprinting in early childhood, a phenomenon which is not only supported by anecdotal evidence in humans, but can be demonstrated experimentally in animals."

This is yet another monstrous jump from a vague hypothesis to a claim of truth. I am always amazed at what passes as 'scientific data' in the US.

There are other problems with the other articles that this one links from, for example different types of fetishes are called 'types of fetishisms' but that is inaccurate use of the term 'fetishism', which applies to all of its manifestations at once; there are not several different "isms", there is only ONE 'ism' with several different manifestations thereof, thus one should state "different types of fetishes", and if the 'ism' must be used, then the term 'fetish' should be dropped from the descriptive term to avoid redundancy.

Also, writers frequently say "a fetish for ... blah" but that is incorrect because it states in effect, that the fetish exists inside the person before they ever encounter the object, like a kind of disease. It is very clinical terminology, and is archaic, because it implies that there is an illness or disorder, which is often not the case. It would be correct for them to say that "blah is so-and-so's fetish" or "so-and-so has a blah fetish" which clearly show that the fetish is the object rather than saying that the person is the object of the fetish, which really does not make logical sense, yet is often used in clinical terminology and has now, over time, become common language. I wish people would be accurate in their use of words. Maybe someday I will edit the whole bloody mess, but I don't have such luxury of time at the moment...

Butt Fetishism[edit]

Shouldn't there be a butt fetishism article. I certainly know i'm afflicted with it :). could link to that i like big butts song, rap music, black culture and Vida. there shoud deffinetly be an article

I am surprised there isn't one for the buttocks. Maybe it got deleted? Also, what is the determination of what articles make it into the fetishism template? Not all fetish articles are in it (Fat, e.g.) (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That would likely be covered by partialism, which refers to sexual interests in specific parts of the body. I am not aware of any substantial literature that names specific paraphilias or fetishes according to body parts themselves.
MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Concepts instead of objects?[edit]

What do you call it when you are attracted to a concept instead of an object? For example, canibalism 'fetish' appears to be called 'Vore'. There is also people who like transformation 'fetish' like werewolves. These do not seem to be covered in this article. --ShaunMacPherson 07:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Paraphilia? "...sexual arousal in response to sexual objects or situations...", so I imagine it would cover both fetishism (objects) and concepts. Mdwh 02:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
See Binet's idea mentioned in the "types" section of the article. 22:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


what is the ratio behind the common / less common distinction? It seems a bit far-fetched to me to list "funny animal" and "amputee" fetishism as "common" and list "smoking fetishism" as less common. I don't have any statistics myself, but I would like to see some, or any source at all, backing this claim. 18:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, can we decide whether aquaphilia is common or less common? It's listed as both. (whoops) -- 16:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

What is the fetish for statistical frequency?.. I think this should be added to the list, if we can find some sources. 22:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

common vs. less common fetishes[edit]

The division seems unreliable. Amputee fetishism common? Is it not also the same as Acrotomophilia, which is on the less common list?

I have to agree. I would be better to cut it from the article and move it to a list of *all* fetishes. Any division will be subjective and incomplete. Besides that there are some uncommon fetishes that are heavily acted on, yet there are common fetishes that are rarely acted on. So you have to decide between having a fetish and acting on a fetish. It just gets messy. If one more person agrees and no one objects then I say we should do it. ~Capi crimm.
I'm very sceptical about this Kinsey-esque "commonality" approach. The article needs more theoretical discussion rather than compiling lists ad infinitum. 12:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


Is masochism strictly a fetish? Whilst it is a paraphilia, there is no attraction towards "a specific inanimate object or part of a person's body", rather it is an attraction towards a concept (ie, pain). The same could be said of Algolagnia (although Pain_fetish redirects there, there is no mention of it being a fetish in the article, only a paraphilia).

Pain is not a concept, it is a behaviour and an experience.

This also contradicts the lists at paraphilia, where they are listed separately to fetishes. The list here is growing rather long, so I don't feel it's useful to clutter it up with other types of paraphilia also. Mdwh 02:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Researching Fetishism[edit]

On what grounds do we decide what fetishes deserve articles and which do not? Is it based on how many people practice it? How can we verify numbers? Plus how can we possibly research a particular fetish without sinking into original research?

I also disagree with the definition of fetish. I have always considered a fetish a sexual attraction to something which most other people would not be attracted to. A fetish is also something which is not necessary related to sexual activity, such as feet or hair.

Therefore, I would disagree that a sexual attraction to breasts is a fetish, both because it is common and breasts are a secondary sex characteristic. Captain Jackson 03:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Read some books and present the results.. the answers are in the books. 23:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


Aren't latex and rubber the same thing? Why are they listed separately in the list? 'or other garments made out of specific materials such as rubber, fur, spandex, leather, latex or nylon.' 01:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Fetishes as "normal sexual desire"[edit]

Sometimes, whole cultures can develop the fetish to such an extent that it is no longer perceived as a fetish, but merely as a normal sexual desire; for example late-Victorian England's ankle fetish [citation needed], or the modern commonplace fetish for lingerie and women lacking body hair.

This was originally added in by an unregistered user [1], and I have some issues with it:

  • Is there any source for "Victorian England's ankle fetish"? The only references I can find online are sites mirroring Wikipedia.
  • I don't understand "commonplace fetish for lingerie" - whilst lingerie is viewed as sexual, that's not at all the same thing as having a fetish for it. If someone was turned on by the lingerie alone, this would still be perceived as a fetish, and I do not see evidence that this is commonplace - something which the "whole culture" has.
  • Similarly for "women lacking body hair" - that society thinks women should shave their legs is nothing to do with it being a fetish. Having a fetish for specifically hairless women is not a commonplace thing as far as I know.

These last two points make me wonder even more about the claim of "Victorian England's ankle fetish", and whether this is really referring to a fetish.

Having said that, I can kind of see what it's trying to say - a better example would be Breast fetishism, in that a sexual attraction towards breasts is seen not as a fetish, and indeed it's seen as normal. But I'm not convinced of the current examples of ankles, lingerie and lacking body hair. Should we just delete the paragraph, or can it be improved? Mdwh 02:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The claims that whole societies have fetishes, usually appears in the context of cultural criticism, thus the instructions for societies to enter group psychoanalysis for 'sexual disorders' are self evidently non-starters. 13:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the foot fetish is quite easily explained by the arousing image of the sliding-off of a woman's shoe as the first shedding of her emotional armour. It's the first act she performs on entering the bedroom, away from prying eyes. This is a very special moment for her admirer. Even the statement "My feet are killing me" is something she would not say to a male stranger; it puts out a muted signal of intimacy. (talk) 00:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk Vandalism[edit]

Is it against wikipedia policy to remove crap like what's currently at the top of the page? DanPMK 10:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


I know you can't have everything here but what about breastfeeding. --Gbleem 15:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Fingernail Fetishism deleted[edit]

So, i saw a link on this page go red and it turns out "fingernail fetishism" got deleted.

People, we've got to merge some of these stub articles and flesh them out so they don't get deleted.

And, when people add new fetishes maybe its best to put a paragraph in this article or add to a similar preexisting fetish article. If there's enough text then a new article can be spun off. 01:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

People, enough with the red links[edit]

Most of the red links that get posted here are already covered by existing articles. Please just fill out the existing articles. Most of the fetish articles are stubs with multiple needs-improvement tags and are in danger of being deleted unless they get some attention.

circumcision fetish[edit]

I am really missing a section on circumcision fetish. I mean, come on, there is an article about "Foreskin fetish". What kind of sick world are we living in? 22:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The link just redirects to this page. If you think it's notable, then write an article on it please. Note that there is an article on Foreskin fetish. Also please be aware of what a fetish actually is - circumcision is an act, not a body part or object, so I'm not sure how a fetish for it makes sense. Therefore I'm reverting. Mdwh 23:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The article used to exist, but was deleted due to the total absence of reliable sources documenting the phenomenon. Foreskin fetish isn't much better, but for some reason survived the AfD. It might be worth re-nominating it. Jakew 09:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
If I am not mistaken, a foreskin fetish would be perfectly normal. The would be like having a labia fetish. If it is part of the sexual organ, it isn't a fetish.
Whether there are cases of these fetishes in clinical literature is significant to the article, just like the idea that *any* object or phenomena (whether mental or material) may be subject to fetishistic desire. Fetishism is not more true, or less true according to the potency of a sexual organ or case frequency - it is an axiom, which describes the sexual fixation or obsession in a single thing (whatever it is) at the expense of other things. 15:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

lipstick fetishism[edit]

Added lipstick fetishism to the list, its common across many cultures and gender identities, there are several online groups for it, notably [[2]] and a variety of commercial porn sites and porn movies catering to it. 21:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge of Insertion fantasy into this article[edit]

I see that there has been no discussion of this proposed merge at all since the articles were tagged. I don't think the articles should be merged, so if no one objects in the next 7 days I'll remove the merge tags from both articles. Robotman1974 00:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

There were no comments made one way or the other, so I removed the merge tags. Robotman1974 03:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Shirt fetishism[edit]

Is that a real thing? I think I have it and it sounds plausible :P --BiT 22:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Could someone be a little more specific as to what this is exactly?

No, do your own research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Conjoined Twin Fetishism[edit]

[] - enough said - I aint no wiki editor so someone else do it please —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with you?... visit the help page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Desks? Really?[edit]

Is there really such a thing as desk fetishism? It seems as though everything excites someone, but I'm not sure I quite buy that. It sounds like something from Uncyclopedia. There's no source or anything, and nothing on Google. Can we see some evidence, or if it is vandalism (which is highly likely) could we get rid of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what is so surprising about that. Consider that a major potential mechanism of sexual fetishism is a positive feedback loop of sexual desires/rewards. And read Savage Love, the sex advice column by Dan Savage; it's in The Onion AV Club, and he has an iPhone app. If you don't have any fetishistic desires whatsoever, it is probably because you are not one of the many who get sexual arousal from transgressive acts in general. It's fine that you don't, but the knowledge that one is transgressing seems to be a common source of sexual arousal, as feeling good while "breaking the rules" can give a boosting feeling of empowerment, freedom, and self determination, not to mention an adrenaline rush. If the potential fetishist has ideologically renounced their commitments to the sexual rules they are transgressing (or never agreed with them to begin with) this person is especially likely to attribute the adrenaline rush to feelings of "being alive" or to more specifically sexual feelings. Since these rules and one's relationship to them are learned and experienced subjectively in relationship to the complex physical and metaphysical world of a thinking, the reality of what the rules or boundaries are and are wished to be is based on complex cultural factors. Since almost any act could be transgressive in some hypothetical culture or situation, almost every conceivable act, object, or situation has probably been fetishized by somebody. Since the majority of taboos are completely victimless transgressions, more educated people seem to be becoming interested in this side of their sexuality all the time. Further, since nearly every taboo that actually does have a victim also has victim fetishists in addition to perpetrator fetishists, so those who have a firm grasp on the difference between fantasy and reality, who also have a fairly extreme fetish, are increasingly likely as population growth, communication technology, and the rise of globalism/cosmopolitanism grant to have the opportunity to explore their common and the social scene (if any) surrounding them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Sports fetishism![edit]

Nothing at all on sports fetishism on the page! Sports fetishim is also a pretty spread variety of fetishism, both homosexual and heterosexual! I have just done a minor edit on this in "types of fetishes sections" and I would like to make further contributions on this item. Also, hope for further contributions from other members. Perhaps a separate section on sports fetishism must be done in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkrasn (talkcontribs) 23:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Greatings from Russia! And sorry for my English! I have fetish of shiny nylon sportwear. I like when young women wear shellsuits, windsuits, nylon traksuits ect. And I seek people with this fetish. Especialy I seek women who have it! My friends created web-forum about this fetish: We try to make new fetish comunity. And we welcome people with this fetish at our forum. (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Shellsuitfetish

External Links[edit]

I have some problems with the external links:

The Catholic Encyclopaedia: fetishism - Despite the claim that it's "quite extensive, well researched, and relatively objective" (isn't that just opinion?), it seems to only show fetishism from the Catholic point of view. I'm not sure how appropriate it is for an encyclopedia that is supposed to be unbiased.

Fetish Links Org - Doesn't offer any more insite into the subject and is just a porn site directory

The Urineists - This is a google group. It seems like advertising to me, and nonetheless should be moved to a page on Wiki exclusively about urine fetish (if there is one).

Fetish Project - I haven't looked into this too much, but from what I've seen, it seems to be an advertisement.

Legs and feet fetish - A blog website.

I'll leave them alone for now, but I'd like to hear what other people think about keeping or removing them. Drexx 22:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome and sexual fetishism[edit]

Is there any documented link between asperger syndrome and sexual fetishism? One symptom of asperger involves fixation on parts of objects, so it seems likely that this could lead to the development of a sexual fetish for a body part for instance.-- 00:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I read in the blog of a spandex fetishist that he had tested rather towards the autistic side of the scale, though he wasn't in the least bit. It lead him to suspect the same possible link, as he had heard that persons with autism feel comforted by confining and restrictive clothing, perhaps because it feels like they're being held/protected. I have also heard that the current autism epidemic may be caused by the hyper-toxicity of our modern world. If that were the case, then the modern explosion of latex, spandex, etc. fetishes could be a symptom of persons who were poisoned in the same way that the autist is; but not enough to actually develop the disease. Just some thoughts. Finnbjorn 11:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What? What are you on about you think Asperger Syndrome is bad? Toxic? AS has been traced way back to Newtons time and possibly even older than that, Aristotle for example. Read up on AS, it's a featureed article. And taking references from blogs? They're not reliable! I have AS and I'm offended by the way you think. In answer to the question there is none I can find that are reliable. There is no such as an "autism epidemic" - the autism spectrum is huge. The general population are on it and it's nothing neurological just behavioural - that's why it's called a syndrome. Don't treat austistic people like crap or some kind of animal. Oh and by the way we were not "poisened". We were born autistic that is we litrally think the same way when tackling problems. Do some research before you wrap us around in your blatant biased opinions. LOTRrules (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry. I reread my post and saw that I had wrote: " . . . the current autism epidemic may be the cause of the hyper-toxicity of our modern world.", when I meant to write: " . . . the current autism epidemic may be caused by the hyper-toxicity of our modern world." I was probably high at the time. I have corrected it, and I think my post might make sense to you now and you'll be moved to retract some of your venom. I do apologize for the confusion.

Finnbjorn (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


I would like to include a link to the Bukkake article under Fluid and excretory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MCWicoff (talkcontribs) 19:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Not NPOV[edit]

This whole article promotes an attitude of casual tolerance towards fetishism, and the research cited points it to being largely beyond a person's control, and largely harmless. Where is the opposing viewpoint, that fetishism is mentally and morally degrading, and a possible sign of insanity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I disagree that it's POV; is there anyone who agrees with the above comment? If not, we can probably remove the tag.-- 22:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Not all articles require opposing viewpoints. This is a descriptive article defining the facets of a fairly broad topic. The fact that it lacks the view that it's mentally and morally degrading does not make it POV or pro-fetish. This article is highly detached, scientific, and well-cited (with the exception of Sexual fetishism#Types of fetishes, which should probably just hyperlink to a list). Furthermore,sexual fetishism#Medical aspects addresses disruptive negativity quite tastefully. Moral concerns, need they be addressed, should probably be placed on more specific articles dealing a specific sexual fetish (if such concerns are raised by notable entities and can be cited). Tagging this article was premature. -Etafly 06:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


I find fetishism so very interesting because I have none that I'm aware of. I'm always trying to tune-in to the latest perversion that whatever group is deciding to tout. When I hear about 'pony-play' or 'furverts' or other types of groups appearing here and there - people 'coming out' about what amounts to a bazaar sexual addiction - I'm very interested.

For example, I love hearing about how the people who feel most comfortable living their lives dressed in furry animal costumes have their annual conventions crashed by the people who wear furry animal costumes for sexual pleasure. I love when I hear about how the former gets all upset with the latter because they can't figure out exactly which furry creature is getting 'too into' the activities and which ones are living out a Disney-esque non-sexual fantasy.

That's the sort of information I was expecting to find here in the sexual fetishism section. I agree with everyone else's comments above about the problems with this site. I want to read about what's really out there. Who cares if it has a Latin term assigned? None of that matters to me.

Calling something "sexual fetishism" is redundant. Fetishism is sexual already - it's part of the definition. Here's what's missing: I think this section should be newly titled "Fetishistic Objectification" because that's what I truly feel is being written about here. That is, and I'm making this up, when an individual projects an abstract notion, feeling or ideal onto a form in order to better contrive a reenactment of a significant personally historical experience.

What's happening now is bigger than just fixing psycho-problems with analysis or pills or definitions and diagnosis. Maybe, for the most part, nothing is broken - maybe this is how we are. Perhaps those who explore their deepest desires are actually healthier than those of us who don't 'get it'.

I'm just trying to convey a sense of what I'm interested in finding here. It's what I was hoping to find but, alas, did not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry.wriothesely (talkcontribs) 06:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  • What you're looking for is Furry fandom#Sex and furry fandom. Also, the term 'sexual fetishism' is most certainly not redundant, as the actual meaning of the word 'fetish' does not explicitly have sexual connotations. It has now come into broader use as a sort of euphemism (an object for worship), and is used, albeit incorrectly, interchangeably with the term 'sexual fetishism.' See fetishism for further detail. Cheers. -Etafly 21:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

dental braces[edit]

There used to be a reference in the dental braces page to braces being a fetish for some people. However, this reference, as well as the separate article on fetishes (as well as it being listed in types of fetishes) has been removed. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) at 17:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Desk Fetish[edit]

Desk Fetishes are actually quite common, so my edits are valid. I will provide sources at some point that confirm this. In the meantime, please do not remove my legitimate edits!-- 11:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that desk fetishes originate secondarily from witnessing, hearing about, or participating in someone else's acting on a fetish that is potentially desk related (e.g. fetish for the boss or the teacher)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Types of fetishes[edit]

Is it possible to truncate or even eliminate this section from the article, and instead, link to List of fetishes? This article has a great deal of potential, but it seems as though this section will never be rid of OR, and as a result, drags down the rest of the article. The best way to go would be to keep the section as brief as possible, link to the specific article, and merge the existing content from that section (image included) into List of fetishes. Thoughts? -Etafly 17:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Defloration/Virgin Fetish[edit]

Umm . . . anybody see any sources on this one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) at 08:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

/Archive 1

Is a fixation on a sexual organ a "fetish"?[edit]

If one has a sexual fixation on a body part that is sexual in nature already, is it strictly true to describe that as a fetish?

I mean, something like foot fetishism I can understand, but the article mentions foreskin fetishism and breast fetishism - so is there such a thing as vagina fetishism, or nipple fetishism? Where do you draw the line? 21:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Fetishism refers to an obsession with a single thing. In the case of a vagina - the owner would be of secondary concern to the fetishist (if at all). Normative sexuality requires two relatively whole people to be conscious of each others consciousness. 20:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Would it be normative if you were excited by imagining that the seat of a partner's (or your own consciousness) was inside of her/your sexual organs, instead of behind her/your eyes as most people normally attribute the center of their physical "selfhood", or would it be fetishistic? You could probably come up with an infinite number of difficult to categorize "psychological fetishes," as well as I'm sure numerous examples of people who generally fetishize acts which are difficult to categorize, each with their own favorites I'm sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Delicious flat chest[edit]

Delicious flat chest is delicious, you must eat it Saint James Paul. I understand it isn't your particular fetish, but it is for many lolicon gentlemen. Please don't treat others' tastes as vandalism.

Wouldn't "delicious" flat chest taste like sweat and skin, no different from your arm? -- 02:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced articles on fetishes[edit]

We have too many articles on fetishes that have few or no sources. (For example, smoking fetishism and breast fetishism). The sources in some articles don't even mention the subject fetish. Is this topic covered by a project? We need to either improve the sourcing or cut a lot of text. Maybe we shold make a list of fetishes and include the minor ones there rather than giving them unsourced stubs. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I'd go along with the idea of the list being better than a lot of insignificant stubs. Valrith 15:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the 'Types' section of the article[edit]

Here is a list of a few problems I noticed while reading the 'Types' section of the article, along with a simple solution.

1) Most seriously: commonality and cause of a fetish is very difficult to determine. In my opinion, Cause probably cannot be determined in a general sense. This opinion is reinforced by the earlier part of the article, which states that the cause of fetishism is still largely unknown and likely varies widely from cases to case; therefore: the statement: 'Because clothing and adornment have such frequent links with sexual display, humans may develop clothing fetishes.' is unverifiable opinion and must be rephrased or removed. If it was the case, then we should expect to see more prevalent fetishes for tuxedos, and wedding and formal dresses; but I cannot recall having ever heard of a wedding dress fetish (which is not to say it couldn't exist; but that: if it does, then it is not pervasive, suggesting that the role clothing plays in the mating ritual has little to do with weather or how it becomes the object of a fetish). My own fetishism began before I was sexual with a fixation on jackets, particularly shiny ones, and the shiny materials they are made of, such as leather, nylon, rubber and plastic: clearly clothes that have nothing to do with the 'conventional' Western sexual display (I cannot speak for other cultures in general, I can't call to mind any that include rain slickers at the alter, rubber overalls at the ball, etc.).

Commonality is also nearly impossible to determine; but could be guessed at based on the results of extensive sociological research; however, no such research is sited for the statement that: 'Shoes —often in combination with a desire for feet— are among the top of the list of commonly fetishized items.'; and therefore, this statement is unverifiable opinion and must be rephrased or removed. My own experience tells me that leather is the most commonly fetishized item, followed by rubber; and then, I read an article on Wikipedia that said that a study conducted in Eastern Europe showed down jackets at number three (not surprising for a study done in a part of the world known for it's harsh winters); but, I am not touting this experience as fact: the first two on my list are unverifiable opinion, while the third is unverified hearsay of the debatable results of a narrow study. If we allow this kind of information in an encyclopedia, then we'll be thrown back to Pliny's Natural History and end up with articles on remote tribes of dog-headed people that bark to speak.

2) On a point of technicality: the 'fetishes' listed in the Medical and Disability, and Fluid and Excretory sub-sections of this section are not, in fact, fetishes; but rather: paraphilias; and therefore, they should be removed from this article entirely and placed instead under the article on general paraphilia. To save us all time I will point out that the article on paraphilia already has a much more detailed listing of these behavior, with links to more information. On a point of interest: fetishism is itself a specific kind of paraphilia.

3) On a point of clarity: putting leather and latex together is like putting peas and carrots together: sure, to most people it may seem like a no-brainer; but not everybody who likes peas happens to like carrots, and vice-verse; and furthermore, adding plastic to mix is like adding garlic to your peas and carrots: no chef in their right mind would do so unless they were dead certain everyone coming to the table liked garlic. More importantly peas, carrots and garlic are intrinsically dissimilar; so naturally, they are classified as three entirely different things; and so it is with leather, latex and plastic. I myself identify as having a leather fetish, a latex fetish and a plastic fetish; but I would never identify as having a leather-latex-plastic fetish; especially as I prefer to have one without the other two in any given instance.

I often see these fetishes overlapping in the fetish world, but I also know for a fact that they exist in their respective individualized forms. I, therefore, find it wholly unrealistic to group them together. You could propose that they were related; but proving that point would take decades of difficult research that I suspect would end in failure; because, well mostly: I feel that the majority of the leather world would be surprised to discover that the plastic world existed; and I know myself of many plastic fetishists who have no patients for people interested in anything else, including latex (I put up one picture of myself covered in plastic wearing a jacket and without so much as a how-do-you-do I'm kicked out of the group . . . . (is this an example of exhibitionism(a paraphilia)?)).

I, therefore, propose that (1) unverifiable statements and statements of opinion be eliminated or rephrased in a more neutral or subjective tone (except that subjective tones are also inappropriate in an encyclopedia); (2) other, non-fetish, paraphilias be removed from the section; and (3) that a more critical and differentiating eye be applied to the entire classification scheme.

Finnbjorn 10:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC) edited by Finnbjorn 21:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The fetishes are distinguished from other types of paraphillia by the obsession for a single thing, or the reduction of a multi faceted phenomena into a single object. Fetishism also means the belief that a thing possesses intrinsic erotic qualities, while the object in reality has no such essence in itself. The types are incidental, unless one is treating a person for an obsession which then requires investigation into the specifics, or one is producing a pool of statistical data. 20:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that you restate parts two and three of my argument. If so, then does this mean you agree with me? Actually, I just read the article for the first time in a year; and, except for the blurb about gender at the bottom, some stuff in the intro, and generally over-wrought language through out, I'm rather satisfied. You should've seen in back in 2007: it was awful. Some guy with a fetish for female shoes shanghaied the article and dominated it with his rather stupid and plainly biased opinions. I tried to fix it a couple of times; but, he kept changing it back. I'm glad someone managed to to take him down.

Finnbjorn (talk) 08:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


What is Anaclitism? Why is it listed in the "Paraphilias and Fetishes" box down below if it just redirects to Sexual fetishism? -- 03:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably redirected for being fundamentally unsourced. If someone wanted to add citations to the last version, perhaps it could be restored as a separate article. / edg 23:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, the original version of that article contained a link, albeit a non-scholarly one: It may have been deleted because of it's uncooperative redirect behavior. The term seems to have a more common, non-sexual definition, and Google Scholar comes up with little on the paraphilia, but it is defined briefly here: / edg 23:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Types, categories, fetishes, partialisms, neologisms and unsourced articles.[edit]

Have been re-categorized as such. See the template at the foot of the Sexual fetishism page, or go directly to the template here: Template:Sex_fetish. 17:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


Quote: "A public display of fetishistic art in California." The art despited is related to Bondage. There is no proof whatsoever that Bondage is connected to fetishism per se. It can be a fetish, very much like every thing else, but doesn't has to be. The interpretation that bondage art is automatically sexual fetishism is POV. I'll remove the image. --Nemissimo (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The image in question: Image:100 1895.JPG
Using this image may be somewhat misleading because it does not clearly depict fetishism, except perhaps in the colloquial usage of the term to mean "kinky sexual interests". Also, because of the distance at which this photo is taken, it is not easy to figure out what those things in the storefront window are without expanding the image to full resolution. / edg 19:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


"White skin fetish" - I think this should be added to the list of fetishes but I cannot find the name of it anywhere does it exist? LOTRrules 14:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What type of white skin? 22:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
You know how people prefer lighter skin over darker skin? Like that. I'm not a racist but am underlining the truth of society - some people prefer dark skin others whiter skin but the most common seems to be white skin in Europeon contries where people of different ethnicities favour "white" over "their own" the same if a person moves to country lacking "white demographics" excerpt vice versa...

LOTRrules (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There is currently an article dealing with Racial fetishism, but in terms of a fetish for skin tone - it seems familiar in that I recall a report on Channel4 News about the higher status (or regard) awarded to lighter skinned women in Africa among their peers and families. This could essentially be the same as a racial fetish, and was probably not sexually motivated, but I cannot doubt that the possibilities may run contrary to the essentials or primary appearances. Redblueball (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, how come a link isn't on this page? Odd, I'll put one if there isn't LOTRrules (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
no problem.. it's already on the fetish template. Redblueball (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Pale skin fetish.[edit]

I seen here a person with a white skin fetish. I'm interested in learning about pale skin fetish. I'm not talking about white skin in a racial way but as in little to no pigment. I find pale people to be highly beautiful and erotic and was wondering if there was a name for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Necromancer70 (talkcontribs) 19:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You might want to ask about this at Wikipedia:Reference desk. This talk page is to discuss editing this article. Also, while there may be a word for this sexual preference, it may not be considered a fetish; the attraction to certain qualities in people is not in itself considered sexual fetishism, and while the term fetish has taken on a vernacular meaning of unusual or kinky interests, this article is mostly about sexual fetishism in the clinical, traditional sense. / edg 20:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sexual fetishism[edit]

Hello, I have a few sexual fetishes myself.Nothing to very weird, or extemely out there atlease for todays world.In my medium amount of years in ttodays busy and very sexual world, I have found that a lot of te population have some intents over just off the wall fetishs, exspecially when entering the romantic side of things. People come up with new stuff in that area almost constinely. some are actly, most are actly worth give a try if you have a willing partenter. It can/will spice up the relationship normally. On rare ocutations, it may backfire onit. Opening doors tha some people just can handle. Unfortinutely, you never know until it is over and the feeling all of a sudden are hurt or the trust is gone. You must be extemely careful in dealing with those that want to grow and nurture fetishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for telling us all about your views on fetishism and its role in modern relationships. However, this is a Wikipedia talk page, not Twitter; we are here to improve, discuss and critique the article, not society. Therefore, I suggest that, rather than misuse Wikipedia's intended process of improvement, get a Twitter and use it for your insights.
P.S.: Grammar is a great if not vital skill, so learn it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"Official" and non-official forms of fetishism[edit]

The official (ICD and DSM) definitions of "fetish" clearly specify that a fetish can only be for a nonliving object. However, there's also a common use of "fetish" to apply to almost anything that sexually excites someone. Currently, this article is a confused mix of these two meanings, starting with the picture, which has the heading "Foot fetishism is one of the most common fetishes" followed by a link to the ICD-10 entry, which specfies that foot fetishism is not a fetish.

I think it would make sense to separate out these two meanings, into different sections or even different articles. This would also make it easier to think about if the stuff on the "non-official" meaning of fetishm is even useful. Is it anything more than people writing about things that excite them?

Eric-Albert (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the article is necessarily using anything as broad as the "almost anything" definition, although it is broader than the ICD definition. The article states: "the sexual attraction to materials and objects not conventionally viewed as being sexual in nature". So it is still specific to unconventional objects, but with the addition that body parts are included. But I agree with your point about things like foot fetishism not being counted as a fetish. Are there any sources that define fetishism to include body parts, I wonder?
The general usage of the term differs from the clinical meaning in other ways - for example, a diagnosis requires it to adversely affect the person, but in common usage a "fetish" refers to the sexual attraction, even if it's entirely positive for the person. I don't know if we need two separate articles, but we can make the difference clear. I think the "non-official" meaning is certainly useful - ICD diagnoses are not the be all and end all, and fetishism is highly notable beyond simply being a diagnosis (consider, supposing it was no longer considered a diagnosis as many people think it shouldn't be - I would still expect to see an article on Wikipedia about fetishism, just as we still have an article on homosexuality even though that is no longer considered a disorder). Mdwh (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
A quick search reveals some sources that support inclusion of body parts as part of the definition [3] including encyclopedias such as Britannica. Mdwh (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Types and Gender[edit]

What does the "Types" section do to further the article? It doesn't even have a thesis. Just a lump of Binet's opinion smeared across the page mixed in with some random facts. Maybe we could work this into a history section or put it under a "Categorization" sub-section under "Theory".

The "Types" section was recently vandalized. As I reread it a time or two, while I came no closer to understand the purpose or goal of the section, I realized what to do with its content: work it into Psychological origins and development. Unless I receive objections to this idea by 06/23/2009, I'll do it myself.

Finnbjorn (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the "Gender" section is baseless, sourceless and plainly biased. The second and third paragraphs are opinions and smack of original research. The whole section should be removed.

(sorry I forgot to sign)

Finnbjorn (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

problem with "Classifications OF Sexual Fetishism"[edit]

This section fails the neutrality criteria and lacks explanatory power. It's main concern is determining what crimes (?!) an almost always harmless sexual kink will lead to. Responsible psychotherapists, sexologists, and academic psychologists would stay far away from such negatively judgmental (and therefore unscientific) ways of talking about relatively common divergences from "normal" sexual interest. What is the point of ranking levels of fetishism into five tiers culminating in MURDER?! That section is useful for someone who's trying to write a hackneyed script for some spooky cop show, but is a disservice to psychology and probably a significant number of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hortfellow (talkcontribs) 22:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Hortfellow (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Attribution[edit]

I modified the section that introduces Binet. While the most common IQ test (at least in the States, I can't speak of elsewhere) is named after him, he did not invent it. Binet created an intelligence test that gave as a result the subject's "mental age" in accordance with a "Point Scale", not an "Intelligence Quotient". The concept of "IQ" was created by the German psychologist W. Stern. The Stanford-Binet IQ Test was developed later by an American psychometrician, Dr. Lewis Terman, who worked at Stanford University and studied the research of the above-mentioned individuals (as well as that of Boston psychiatrist Dr. Robert Yerkes) before formulating the S-B IQ Test. This little narrative comes from two scholarly books, The Psychiatric Persuasion by Elizabeth Lunbeck and A War of Nerves by Ben Shephard.RolandTheHeadlessThompsonGunner (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Just some thoughts. Why is it that practises common in other cultures and times are now as deviant behauviour or even double standards are being used. E.g. A man in a skirt on the public road is considered an transvestite, whilst on the catwalk it is considered as fashion; in the 18th and 19th century still common practise. Still Binet typefied it as curious behaviour. Where was the sientific basis. Same with Jung who ammended his theories in accordance with the wishes of his clients. Same with women wearing clothing on daily basis which was originally considered men's wear. Hence isn't the need catagorise things a bit excessive?

"General Categories"[edit]

I have a problem with the line about the "general categories" of meaning used in psychoanalysis, as opposed to the more "personal" meanings applied within existential psychotherapy. To begin with, this claim about the qualities attributed to the semiotic categories investigated by these two "different" kinds of psychology is not cited and smacks of opinion and/or original research. Secondly, it is not clear that existential psychotherapy can be differentiated from psychoanalysis in toto; the first "existential psycho-" texts were considered an expansion of Freudian psychoanalysis, not a separate form of analysis altogether (see Sartre, Being and Nothingness). Finally, at least Freud and Lacan, if not Jung, Adler et al., can be seen as highly attuned to the personal signs that populate the unconscious, regardless of their (potential) relationship to any universal psychic structures or complexes, since unravelling the analysand's personal connections to words and images is integral to understanding the dreamwork (and thus every other part of the analysis); see Freud's "injection of Irma" and "botanical monograph" dream analyses in The Interpretation of Dreams and Lacan's "The Agency of the Letter" in Ecrits. As such, it seems inaccurate to refer to psychoanalysis as working with "general categories" in particular (sic!).

I'm not sure how to fix this line yet. I'll come up with something and post it here for your consideration before making any changes. RolandTheHeadlessThompsonGunner (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Asian fetish[edit]

There is a Talk:Asian fetish#Request for Comment and a Talk:Asian fetish#Proposal which may benefit from attention from interested and informed editors. The latter concerns the sexual fetish template and category. Please comment there if you wish to participate. Шизомби (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


Why exactly is the ultimate authority on the definition of fetish, and everyone else's is wrong? Tijfo098 (talk) 05:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Never mind that "physical object" is so vague that it can mean anything. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Definitely odd that we are using that as the main definition source. Flyer22 (talk) 05:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

reboot needed[edit]

I assume that most if not all of the things that were added to the article amidst the apparently great discussion going on here over the years, have all slowly been washed away, leaving basically only the official-psychology aspects, meaning that this article in its present form belongs more in WikiProject Psychology than in WikiProject Sexuality. This article needs a complete and total reboot. If something isn't done about it in a few days I'm going to add a proposal-for-deletion box so we can start this over. Ridiculous. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If you are putting this article up for deletion shouldn't there be a link to the AfD discussion.Secondarily what you want to accomplish can happen through editing, deletion isn't necessary. Tjc (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Sorry, I misunderstood proposed deletion. I object as integration with non-psychological models can be obtained by editing the article. Therefore I'm removing the proposed deletion tag.Tjc (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yet you are doing no editing of the sort. I'm re-instituting the PROD tag; let's discuss further please. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:CONTESTED does not allow re-instituting the PROD tag so I have removed it. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I think a psychologically oriented article is not a bad start. My position of keeping the article as is for the moment instead of a complete reboot is neither an opposition to addition of more sexuality oriented additions to the article nor does it require me to add the sexuality oriented material. No compelling case for a "complete reboot" has been made imo. Why would a clean slate be needed to integrate sexuality oriented information?Tjc (talk) 06:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
@Tjc, Because sexual fetishism as an overall umbrella concept is not, on the whole, a "psychosocial" issue much at all, although fetishes certainly can have some clinically-psychological aspects within them. Basically, this article paints fetishism and fetishists as "outside the norm", when I would argue it's safe to assume that quite a good number of the human population, if not most, has some or other sexual fetish of some type — usually a specific human body part or parts, by the way, and not a "physical [inanimate] object" the way this current article version implies. Therefore, if "sexual fetishism" is 'classifiable' under any 'general heading' (for lack of a better term), it is probably one of lifestyle (similar to sexual orientation) rather than psychology. That is the crux of my argument against the entire tilt of this article as-is, and my call for a reboot. In other words, if we are going to peg (hardy har har) sexual fetishism for what it truly is, then we've got to be careful to actually tell the truth — and the truth is that sexual fetishism affects nearly everyone on one or another level, or at least everyone knows someone who has a fetish of some type, and fetishists by no means belong in mental wards or require some sort of stringent psychoanalysis on account of their 'perversions', even if there are groups of people who won't stop calling them "sick in the head and in need of serious help". Kikodawgzzz (talk) 05:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to in any way contest that the article could be better by a greater emphasis on fetishism as a lifestyle. The crux of your argument doesn't support a reboot but editing in my opinion. Theories of homosexuality before homosexuality became considered by many to be a lifestyle would be encyclopedic and relevant. Nuking work others have done to get to a "truth" wouldn't be appropriate in my opinion even though I'm of the opinion that homosexuality is better classed as a lifestyle than sin or pathology. Noting a source that finds historical parallels between fetishism, homosexuality and other things that were considered psychopathology but have come to be recognized as lifestyle might be a way to work in your personal truth about fetishism. Anyways good luck on AfD. I wish you would cite some precedent or policy for "reboots" because an article has come mostly from another discipline or social perspectiveTjc (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
This discussion needs to be wider than 2-3 people. Your argument that "Noting a source that finds historical parallels between fetishism, homosexuality and other things that were considered psychopathology but have come to be recognized as lifestyle might be a way to work in your personal truth about fetishism" is basically saying that since something was originally thought of in some way, it needs to stay as the basis for what should in theory be an up-to-date Wikipedia article, which is wrong; instead, the psychological origins should be under "Origins" and the bulk of the article be a modern, present-day-focused collection of current research, findings, and experiences. Also, your allegation of this need for current information being in this article as "my personal truth" lobs the whole idea back at me and makes it "my personal opinion", which it is not. Sexual fetishism as a series of accepted (though sometimes reviled by the mainstream) cultures does objectively exist, and that, not this other stuff, should be the crux of this article. Also, your characterisation of it as "my personal truth" suggests hostility towards the idea that the article be changed to something other than what it is right now. Which is exercising ownership. Which is not done on Wikipedia. My argument for a reboot stands. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

"Also, your characterisation of it as "my personal truth" suggests hostility towards the idea that the article be changed to something other than what it is right now. Which is exercising ownership. Which is not done on Wikipedia. My argument for a reboot stands." Wow! so if I imply that a human may have bias or a personal agenda then I'm hostile and the hostility indicates an unwillingness the article be changed, which therefore indicates I'm exercising ownership. Problem with that theory is that I have not expressed any opposition to changing the article I've expressed that no case has been made for a "reboot" that I find satisfactory. I'm one editor. I suggest your logic that I'm exercising ownership is quite contorted.Tjc (talk) 07:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)possibly relevant regarding the insinuation that an opposition to a reboot is exercising ownership is WP:GAME Tjc (talk) 06:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

A Bit confusing[edit]

In the beginning of this article, it states that, "Arousal from a particular body part is not to be confused with fetishism because it is classified as partialism." Although it says this, the very first image/example it uses is Foot fetishism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This page is just awful, factually, in so many ways.AerobicFox (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree AerobicFox. As someone who actually does have actual fetishes and whose sexuality revolves around them people seem to be confusing kinks for Fetishes when a fetish is something that's normally completely non-sexual and not arousing for people at all, unless they have that certain fetish. (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Fetish Map[edit]

I have found a link to the fetish map i beleive the article is referencing in the last section. The link is: I have not added this personally as I am unfamilar with the article and will leave it to those who are, or i can take it upon myself to do so. Z — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerakith (talkcontribs) 18:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It's from Deviant Desires, the book by Katherine Gates listed under "Further reading". --Florian Blaschke (talk)

Treatment section[edit]

I have taken the liberty of removing the following section: "Therapy is the only treatment for extreme sexual fetishes, however treatment may not be needed. Most fetishes are extreme, meaning that one cannot be sexually satisfied without it. Psychoactive medication is a major form of treatment" I was going to edit it to remove several problems (affirmation that most fetishes are extremes, definition of extreme fetishes, contradictions between the first and last sentence etc) but it was so awful I think the article is better without it. However, in the interest of collaboration, I have decided to post about it here so people can see why I did it and comment etc Observer31 (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

In the heading text it states that a fetish is arousal from objects or situations. How come then a "foot fetish" is mentioned as one of the most common fetishes? As a foot is not an object, it should be called a "foot paraphilia", unless of course the foot is a prosthetic one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Semi protected and definition[edit]

I've semi-protected the article as there seems to be an anonymous user edit war occurring. Please discuss your differences on this page and gain a consensus with the aid of the registered users. --GraemeL (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

observing the history of edits, it's apparent that the other anon is wrong. flyer22 dude said that not all sexual fetishes are mental disorders, that the DSM-5 are only proposed changes, and that the blog is not a reliable source. he cited WP:Reliable sources. OohBunnies! dude also said blogs are not reliable sources. and the article says "If a sexual fetish causes significant psychosocial distress for the person or has detrimental effects on important areas of their life, it is diagnosable as a paraphilia in the DSM and the ICD." call me crazy, but i think that means that sexual fetishism is only a disorder if it fits into that definition. even the blog[4] says "Though fetishes are included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV), they are only considered to be an illness if the individual suffers as a result of the addiction. The addiction itself is NOT considered to be an illness. Most fetishes are harmless, confined to bedroom behavior and just a more extreme response to particular stimuli." and the DSM-5 source is talking about Fetishistic Disorder[5], which, again, hasn't even come to fruition. it's really what the DSM-IV-TR says already. (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That's basically the gist of it. The confusion about these matters comes from how the meaning of the word "fetish" (and other paraphilia terms) has mutated over the past century. Way back before the DSM, fetishism, masochism, sadism and other terms all exclusively referred to dangerous, pathological behavior. Over time we as English-speakers just starting tossing them about casually to refer to things that were plainly not problematic (some even non-sexual, like calling someone who works too hard a masochist), and now they generally don't have the same meaning, though pathological expressions of these interests exist obviously, and those are what the DSM refers to.
Just so you know this was a possible attempt by a banned user to evade a block, who made various threats about this kind of thing. Hopefully he'll just go away.Legitimus (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes it was. But you gotta hand it to 'em--they have a magic crystal ball in which they can see what the DSM-V will contain. Hey, maybe they can get me next week's Powerball numbers. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
First, IP, your "call me crazy" wording is something that I sometimes use when I'm baffled, and it's neat that you used it; I LOLed at that part. Secondly, thank you and the others. I really don't have much more to add, except that this article obviously needs more work and that Legitimus is of course correct about the muddled meaning. The article says that "Arousal from a particular body part is classified as partialism.", and the Diagnosis section makes the distinction between being sexually attracted to a non-living object or situation vs. a body part as well. But things such as foot fetishism and navel fetishism are additionally considered sexual fetishes. This will need to be addressed in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 04:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and although being called "Flyer dude" gave me a chuckle, I want to point out that I am female (for those who don't know). Flyer22 (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm female too, and also got called OohBunnies! dude. I saw the note you left on Herostratus's talkpage and figured I'd pop this on my watchlist, reverted an IP edit for the same reasons you mentioned on Herostratus's talk. OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 05:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
LOL, and thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the muddled definitions, there is also a discussion about it taking place at Talk:Cultural history of the buttocks#Buttocks fetishism/Buttocks eroticism. (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 February 2012[edit] (talk) 05:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Classification of sexual fetishes, two categories for sexual fetishes:[edit]

  • A) Transvestic fetishes involving sexual objects belonging to the opposite sex.
  • B) Gay / Homosexual fetishes involving sexual objects belonging to the same sex.

Transvestic fetishism is defined as sexual arousal by clothing belonging to the opposite sex.

The Transvestic fetishism is contrary to homosexual fetishism, which consists in the sexual arousal by clothing belonging to the same sex. Rafaelosornio (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Fetishism most often refers to sexual arousal associated with an inanimate object. Sometimes fetishism is expanded to include partialism (a sexual fixation on a particular particular body part). Gender and this transvestic vs homosexual fetishism is not useful for a taxonomy of fetishes. A fetish for leather as one example is not specifically transvestic or homosexual. Could provide hundreds of other examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjc (talkcontribs) 18:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Two related topics mixed in one article[edit]

It seems to me that there are two related topics here, mixed in one article. One is what the typical English-speaker today would colloquially call a fetish: being sexually aroused by something not broadly considered sexually arousing, or being disproportionately sexually aroused by something that is normally considered something of a sidelight to sexuality. The other is the way the word is used in ICD-10, which is really more a paraphilia than what is more colloquially called a fetish. The article doesn't completely fail to make the distinction, but in terms of the first meaning section headings about "diagnosis" and "treatment" are rather inappropriate.

It seems to me that this article should be about one of these topics or the other; they do not belong lumped in one article. If this article is about sexual fetishism in the ICD-10 sense, then:

  1. How does it differ in scope from the article we already have on paraphilia?
  2. Where, if anywhere, is the article on sexual fetishism in the more colloquial sense?

Conversely, if this article is about sexual fetishism in the more colloquial sense, then why is material here about paraphilia anything much more than a paragraph and a "main article" link? - Jmabel | Talk 04:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Jmabel, this is somewhat discussed above in the #Semi protected and definition section. I don't agree that "this article should be about one of these topics or the other"; it's very common that Wikipedia covers different definitions/concepts of a term in one article. Such an article may be an article covering two different definitions or it may be a WP:BROADCONCEPT article. See what was discussed here at the Sexualization article. Or, very recently, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pussy (2nd nomination). Per WP:Content fork, we should strive to keep aspects of a topic in one article instead of causing readers to go to multiple articles, unless necessary. If there was a lot to state about the colloquial sense of the word sexual fetishism, meaning in WP:Reliable sources, then I might support the article being split into Sexual fetishism (colloquialism) and Sexual fetishism (paraphilia), but I don't see that there is a lot to state about the colloquial sense of the word or that the colloquial sense of the word is often explicitly distinguished from the paraphilia. Besides that, that colloquial sense of the word is not simply a colloquialism, since it is used in formal language. And to title such an article "Sexual fetishism (colloquialism)" would be as though the article is only about the word, when, in actuality, it's more about the concept.
Specifically regarding the ICD-10, it's not simply the ICD-10 that defines sexual fetishism as a paraphilia. Many medical or otherwise clinical sources define it as a paraphilia. And, in my opinion, it seems the ICD-10's definition is not simply defining it as a paraphilia, but also as something that may be normal. It states: "Reliance on some non-living object as a stimulus for sexual arousal and sexual gratification. Many fetishes are extensions of the human body, such as articles of clothing or footwear. Other common examples are characterized by some particular texture such as rubber, plastic or leather. Fetish objects vary in their importance to the individual. In some cases they simply serve to enhance sexual excitement achieved in ordinary ways (e.g. having the partner wear a particular garment)." Then again, when it states "In some cases they simply serve to enhance sexual excitement achieved in ordinary ways," it might be referring to a person who has the paraphilia expressing that paraphilia in ordinary ways. Flyer22 (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure fully how to respond to this, except to say that it is important that we write in such a way as to clearly distinguish a sexual inclination and a mental illness, and I don't think the article as it stands does that at all well. Again, we already have an article on paraphilia, so why is it useful for this article to also cover paraphilia in detail? I believe there should be enough material on the colloquial sense of fetish to make an article, but I'm not particularly inclined to to take the time to research and write it. I do see now that we have a small article called "Fetish culture", which the present article does not even link! But I think it is important that we be clear that when (for example) a bar has a "fetish night" they are not simply glorifying a mental illness. - Jmabel | Talk 15:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sexual fetishism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)