What exactly is a sexual fetish? I’m really curious as to how they develop.
It seems that everybody has some sort of a fetish, with some being more complex and specific than others.
I have one that might be categorized as rather strange, which I will not go into detail about, but I must say that it doesn’t seem to have developed by any logical process.
The only reason that I could conclude is the origin of fetishes is some sort of association with pleasure.
For example, if a child has their first feeling as what may be categorized as sexual pleasure while observing some sort of action, it is likely that that child will associate the action with pleasure in the future and thus a fetish results.
I’d rather you did go into detail. Great detail. Venus in Furs was maybe 90 pages, and it gave us only the vaguest taste for Mr. Sacher-Masoch’s fetish. I would love nothing more than to explore this with you.
If you are concerned about privacy, you might consider using a less idiosyncratic user name, as “whenbothofourcarscollide” yields only about 30 results on Google: some posts on History Forum which includes this information: "Birthday: 12 December 1988; Location: Virginia, MN, and many posts at Ghostvillage.com, where the same user info is posted.
“whenbothofourcarscollide” is also a user URL at Myspace; RayLee is also 18 years old, however she hails from Farmersville, TEXAS. Raylee’s musical taste and personality seem to be a little different from that expressed on the the History Forum and at Ghostvillage.com.
“whenbothofourcarscolide” is a very particular user name, but it seems to have it’s origin in: My Chemical Romance’s “Helena”
Can you hear me?
Are you near me?
Can we pretend to leave and then
Meet again
When both our cars collide
Topical concordance here almost certainly ties together the MN and ILP "whenbothofourcarscollide"s:
But even reading everyone of your 156 posts at Ghostvillage.com would most likely not give away much of your identity besides Hoyt Lakes. I for one couldn’t care less about your identity, or if you’re from Minnesota or Texas or elsewhere. Please go ahead and explain your fetish in detail, it would be very interesting.
I didn’t elaborate on my fetish because I didn’t think it would really interest anyone, since the main point of my thread was to determine the cause of fetishes in general, rather than exploring a specific one.
However, it might be necessary to give an example in order to get to the root cause of all fetishes through analysis.
As for going into great detail about my fetish, I cannot write a large description because it is not that complex. But I’ll give a basic overview.
I hope that by learning of what I like, you won’t hold any less of an opinion of me than you currently do. I’ve always cared what people think of me, for some reason.
For as long as I can remember, from the time I was about 2 years old, I’ve always been fascinated with seeing girls pee their pants. I would always look at girls I saw on TV and wonder if they ever did that. As I began to mature, I began to get feelings one might categorize as sexual when I thought of this. When I became a teenager, these feelings had evolved into a full-blown fetish. I couldn’t explain or even fathom why I found the act of a girl wetting her pants to be so irresistible to me, but I accepted it. Naturally I would question the nature of this, and also I would wonder about my sanity, until I discovered that other people have this exact same fetish.
This fascinated me that so many people could have a fetish that I thought to be so bizarre, and I figured that there must be some sort of root behind mine and consequently all fetishes.
I’d be grateful if you’d explore the nature of fetishes with me and help me to formulate a theory.
On reading your second post, these are the things that first came to mind:
-Loss of control, humiliation
-Genitals
-How would this fetish expand into a fantasy, what is it’s ultimate extension in a vacuum?
-What is her reaction to peeing herself?
-Golden shower is also a turn on?
To elaborate:(G.).
When I search Google for “pee fetish,” the very first site to come up is: “THE DOMINATION GUIDE - Pee Fetish.” This is not at all a surprise to me, as it was my first thought about the subject.
I would be very interested if you could fill in this question:
“-How would this fetish expand into a fantasy, what is it’s ultimate extension in a vacuum?”
Right now I do not really understand your fetish exactly. Looking through the first few pages and sites on Google and also Google Images I see a few images described exactly as per you description above of the girl peeing her pants. The bulk of the material seems to be either simply a woman peeing, a woman peeing on another woman, or a man (NB: with erection) peeing on a woman, sometimes after he (or they) has ejaculated on her.
If these other tangents are of interest to you, and you read the article at the link posted above, I imagine you can see how I would see a pee fetish as a sort of humiliation or sadistic fetish. Telling a girl that she can not pee and having that authority over her would obviously be a sort of control fetish, maybe not all together different from just classic bondage.
I am not interested in any form of peeing. Although I do not find it disgusting. I have very occasionally imagined peeing on a girl, but have never done it.
From Google I see a lot of overlap between peeing and bondage and oral fetish. When I search for “pee her pants,” clearly the women peeing their pants are sex objects: beautiful, young, blond and so on. Also I see embarassing images of celebrities and drunken people who have peed their pants. Again this brings to mind very classic fetish S and M ideas about humiliation.
To reiterate, it would really help to understand this question if you would elaborate on:
“-How would this fetish expand into a fantasy, what is it’s ultimate extension in a vacuum?”
Where are you in this? Are you a voyeur? Are you her master? Are you her? Are you peeing on her? Etc.
Here is a list of fetishes from site called Fetish Bank:
BRUNETTE, REDHEAD, BLONDE, TEEN BABES, MATURE BABES, IN GLASSES, BIG & HUGE TITS, SMALL TITS, EXHIBITIONISM, ASS & BUTTS, PANTIES, VOYEUR, RUSSIANS, EBONY, LATINAS, ASIAN GIRLS, INDIAN GIRLS, HIGH HEELS & BOOTS, LEGS, PANTYHOSE, SEXY LINGERIE, UNIFORM FETISH, NAIL FETISH, SPORTGIRLS, BALLOON SEX, SLEEPING FETISH, OUTDOOR, FOOD FETISH, WET & MESSY, WRESTLING, SMOKING SEX, FOOT FETISH, HAIR FETISH, INFANTILISM, LESBIAN, BISEXUALS, GAY, DILDO & OBJECT INSERTION, TRAMPLING SEX, BONDAGE, FEMALE DOM, FEMINIZATION, MALE DOMINATION, STRAPON, SMOTHERING & FACE SITTING, PVC AND LATEX, BBW, PIERCINGS, TATTOOS, ART, SPANKING, GOTHIC, TICKLING, LEATHER FETISH, CLOSE UP, TRANSVESTITE, INTERRACIAL, GROUP SEX, ANAL SEX, ORAL ACTION, CUMSHOTS, BIG COCKS, SHAVED GIRLS, SEX WITH MIDGETS, VINTAGE, PREGNANT GIRLS, MILK SEX, DRUNK SEX, HENTAI, ALIEN SEX, FANTASY RAPE, FISTING SEX, MEDICAL FETISH, FAT WOMEN, UGLY GIRLS, MENSTRUAL, OLD WOMEN, PEE, POO, ENEMA, FART, SQUIRTING, TIT PAIN, SPIT, DOUBLE PENETRATION SEX
A sight you may be familiar with, Literotica, is very interesting for the consideration of fetish, there is also a forum there, and many of the works of fiction delve at great length into the all important details of various fetishes. Fetish is a more exhastive topic than the list above; “rainbow showers,” incest, furries, braces, CFNM, candaulism aquaphilia/hydrophilia, water torture, unbirth, endosomatophilia, vorarephilia, abasiophilia, bestiality and so on and so on are not even mentioned by Fetish Bank.
Philosophy is also concerned with origins, as my own predilations did not develop until into puberty, it would be very interesting if you could go into more detail regarding the genesis of this fetish.
Aristotle asked us to consider “what people say,” a casual survey of my co-workers on this subject brought up the celebrities R.Kelly and Dave Chappelle.
He also asked us to consider what philosophers before us have written on the topic. Sade is always the first place to turn for sexual maters, but I do not recall him ever writing about peeing. Wikipedia calls pee fetish Urolagnia. The minds at Wikipedia seem to have tread over much the same ground that we already have,
These elements too have already seen our consideration,
So, is there nothing new under the sun?
What sets the philosopher aside from the psychologist or novelist is that the philosopher simplifies. Where the psychologist splits hairs and spins a vast taxonomy out of urophagia, the philosopher identifies patterns, repetitions and deep sources of the multifarious phenomena. Although unpolished, this stub from Wikipedia is very philosophical,
I hope that you could fill in some of these questions:
-genesis of the fetish?
-extension in fantasy?
-insights, related material, etc.?
To reply to your question, “what is its ultimate extension in a vacuum?”, I would state that I am not her master or in anyway superior to her, and I am also not her (except maybe in a sense in which I will elaborate on later), but am simply a voyeur.
Also, it is not the humilation aspect of a girl peeing her pants that turns me on.
The ideal fantasy, “in a vacuum”, would be something along the lines of the following:
I am watching a girl who is clearly desperate and needs to pee. She is usually wearing denim jeans, preferably blue or black, or cotton sweatpants. She is usually alone, in the privacy of her home or some other secluded place. She makes a mention of how she will pee her pants if she doesn’t get to a bathroom soon. She begins to make the gesticulations and facial expressions of someone who obviously needs to use the bathroom. This goes on for some time, usually for 30 seconds or so. Eventually she gets to the point where she simply gives in and completely wets herself right there, stopping for nothing. She has a look of ecstacy on her face. As I mentioned earlier, I could become her in the sense that I am empathetic to her relief and thus her pleasure becomes mine in a certain respect.
Another ideal fantasy would be similar to the above except that there is no desperation sequence leading up to the inevitable apex of the fantasy (wetting), but rather the girl is alone (although I have not objected to the idea of several girls wetting at once) and realizes that there is a small likelihood of her getting caught in the act of wetting her pants, and intentionally soaks her pants, with the same look of ecstacy and relief on her face.
The girl must never have any objection to the act of wetting herself in my ideal fantasy. Her wetting must happen with no suggestion or command from any other force other than her own free will. This leads me to believe that I don’t have a control fetish, since a situation where a girl wets her pants as a last resort wouldn’t be ideal; I think I am simply a voyeur.
As for the origin of this fetish, I could perhaps elaborate on some of my said childhood memories of my interest in this fantasy.
I remember that I used to live next to this girl who was maybe one or two years older than me, and I would play with her almost everyday. She would sometimes wet her pants so that she didn’t have to go back inside while we were playing. As I was only 5 years old or so, I didn’t have a concept of sexual pleasure and didn’t feel this, only immense interest. I remember asking her if she was worried that her mother would see what she had done and reprimand her, but she said that she wasn’t worried about it.
I think this blatant disregard for authority is what interested me; I would have never even considered disobeying my parents at that age, and I was quite impressed by her.
I mentioned in my first post that I have been interested in this fetish since I was about 2. While my first experience with the actual act was when I was about 5 years old, I do remember seeing girls on TV and wondering if they ever wet their pants. I don’t think I can account for this, as there is no previous experience that might suggest my interest. One thing I find interesting about this is that it was only girls that I was interested in; to a child at that age, there usually isn’t much difference between a boy and a girl besides the obvious anatomical variation.
As for other sources, I have only found one psychological/ philosophical theory behind fetishes. It was Freud’s theory about them. He stated that a child will look at his naked mother in order to see her penis, and when he realizes that she doesn’t have one, he looks away with shame, and whatever he focuses on will become his fetish. Freud felt that only boys may get fetishes because girls lack the mental capacity to possess one. I haven’t considered this theory much because of the lack of conventional logic it contains.
I hope the above answers some of your questions. I’d like to hear what your thoughts are.
Being something of a fetish hound myself, this topic caught my eye.
I think, in general, fettishes are the product of relationships formed over time. A good example is one of my current “pets”, for lack of a better term. She’s completely independant in most things, but, when confronted with anything of a social or sexual nature, she wants nothing more than to have someone to decide for her—selective removal of control.
In her childhood, her parents were extremely strict, and, as a biproduct, she was a straight A student. However, she had no social life, and grew up stunted, in my opinion. Now, she’s entered into something akin to a master-slave relationship with me, more for the social aspects, and having someone to decide for her, than any other reason.
Now, this kind of involvement, or escapism, tends to be common amongst those in the BDSM community, or at least what part of it I’ve met/ “met”. They either want control taken from them, or have an inexplicable urge to claim and mark more territory, or more people, than anyone else.
So perhaps its not the association of pleasure, but rather, the escapism from the uncomforatble, or a subversion of a complete ideal into a singular fetish (Someone wants to be controlled, to be walked over, thus, they create a foot fetish and a submissive attitude), or multiple ones, where applicable.
As for the peeing fetish above, i think its an expression of a person’s love of release, in an orgasm-free environment. Like an orgasm, peeing is the expulsion of a large quantity of liquid from the nether regions, and, though not orgasmic in nature, there is still a large quantity of pleasure to be had from releaving yourself. Thus, the fetish in question is an expectation of torture (the buildup scene) leading to sweet release from condemnation through the breaking of social norms.
Okay, I’ve written my dirty little piece for the morning. Feel free to yell, bitch, or ignore.(wiggles butt)
The iconology of urinating putti in the Renaissance and Rococo canon is undoubtably “an [oceanic] expression of a person’s love of release, in an orgasm-free environment.” It’s hard not to see an overlay of the Religious with the Sexual in Fetish. (Defensive repression against Dread?)
In Kindergarten I had a terrible crush on Joan. Some of my very earliest proto-sexual ideations stem from fantasizing about being tiny and entering Joan via her “nether regions” (endosomatophilia, “Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?” Psalm 139:7). Reasonably a child’s collective unconscious would hold some archetype of the role of the genital region in it’s future sexuality.
But I want to take you at your word and not impress a prefabricated model of fetish onto your experience.
This is something taboo.
The following article has informed much of my recent thinking on voyeurism/exhibitionism; much of what I had previously imagined to be my own voyeuristic behaviours, I now see as a form of exhibitionism that toys with or has a “blatant disregard for authority,” in particular, playing with beinging caught and punishment, (“I would have never even considered disobeying my parents at that age…”).
Perhaps there is a subtle dimension of this toying with authority in what you call being “simply a voyeur.”
On the otherhand, on first reading your third post, the isolation of your person from the scene of action in the fetish fantasy is saddening, a never to be realized longing. All over the world, young women must be peeing themselves at this exact moment. But I was so struck at how unrealizable this fantasy must be for you-- like the furries who can only imagine their fetish-- there are no animorphs.
That isolation could also be read as a Sadeian isolation, brooding from some mountainous fortress–
But most of all fetish is a gift. An ability to see a beauty and sensuality of the world, invisible to most everyone else. Sex is everywhere, but only the fetishist is able to see it.
I’ve told a few people about it, and some of them were disgusted with me. Interestingly, it was only the males I’ve told that were disgusted by it. I’ve told maybe 2 or 3 girls about it, and they said it was not gross, but to not expect to see them doing in anytime in the near future.
I don’t know if I’m ever going to find a girl that will share this same interest with me.
If I must resort to Frued or psychoanalysis, which I must, I would have to say that perversion by and large is an aspect of everybody’s personality (If I take the reductionist attitude, a person’s psyche can be reduced to their composite parts).
Freud suggests that:
‘…No healthy person it appears can fail to make some addition that might be called perverse to the normal sexual aim: and the universality of this finding is in itself enough to show how inappropriate it is to use the word perversion as a term of reproach.’
(Interesting…we don’t just bring our physical bodies to the sexual act we all bring ourselves (our minds) too. (in case anyone had forgotten)
(speak for yourself Freud…Wait till I tell your Mother!)
I would agree with the point of view which takes sexual fetishism as a sign of a deeper personal discomfort. I would say that each fetish or any sexual preference which is not exclusively involved with procreation or with the intercourse that might result in it, is connected to each individual’s particular existential anxieties, expressed through psychosis and need.
I would suggest, furthermore, that sex in general, beyond the particular preferences and idiosyncrasies, exposes an existential limitation or incompleteness seeking completion.
Sex, in my opinion, is antithetical to the whole enterprise of individuality as it entails a loss of it for the sake of a continuance through another or using another.
It is why many experience it as a pleasurable release from the anguish and isolation of self.
An individual discovers itself through another and then creates distances to distinguish self, in relation. It creates a spaces of comfort around what it identifies with self.
Sex forces the disintegration of these same distances and comfort spaces, for a time, and re-establishes self-identification within a new unity of two or more.
It is why sex is so reliant, in order to become feasible, on inebriating the mind with emotion and need.
It is how the mind overcomes its natural tendency to keep at a distance or to create boundaries or to suppress inhibition and fear of the mysterious other.
This momentary loss of self within a new unity is often experienced as a religious epiphany.
It is the experience a religious mind has or what mob psychology is or what is so attractive about the entire idea of belonging or of losing one’s self within a community or a world.
Specific cause? Hahah.
If you put on a skirt & were a man, would you feel like that was a female thing to do, would you feel “gay”?
Ah, we see that humans combine objects and actions with other concepts and emotions that don’t actually have anything to do with eachother.
Love + God, for example, thought you can have one without the other.
The causes are many, but the mechanism is simple and I’ve already told you about that mechanism. Simple simple.
Welcome to social hell, we hope you have enjoyed the mind altering visit, please leave your deeply altered mind at the door and step in…
Maybe you should ignore everyone? That’s not possible, I’ve tried.
Lol.
qf: Some women take a piss during orgasm.
=)
It’s funner for them, they say.
(* Huggies pull ups song *)
I’m a big kid now.
There wont be a single cause, but a single mind-mechanism used.
Lol. Next step is tripple penetration sex, as you pet 2 fluffy bunnies simultaniously, and smoke, wearing high heels and large rubber boots, taking a piss and a shit, puking, sleeping and screaming all at the same time.
Nobody has purely strait and efficient Christian sex, do they?
Is everybody mentally ill?
Do they watch a violant movie because they secretly want to kill?
Or are they all just bored and meaningless, looking for “fun”?
=)
Just a few questions.
Also check out Krusty-the-Clown’s imitation-love-and-meaning, nine out of ten humans can’t tell the difference. Only $4,999 pluss tax, low low prices, everybody’s buying!
Bah, but if you have to pay for it, its not as intimate. If you’ve ever paid someone to do something for you, there’s no sponteneity in the act. No true feeling of fear when you slap them across the room, or redemption in their orgasm.
(For those that don’t know me well, I did indeed imply the savage beating of a whore)
(For those that know me even less: It was a joke…except for the lack of sponteneity part.)
Well put. So understated that it almost comes off as sarcasm, but it isn’t.
I want to imagine that fetish is the mirror image of phobia: a repressing objectification of dread. Dread is everywhere, but as a specific phobia of the dark or of high places, aquious irrational dread is made into an object which can be treaded rationally and dealt with as an object is dealt with. Many phobic objects have only hardly concealed their encorporated dread: Nyctophobia and the many “dark” metaphores we use to refer to the spiritual; Altophobia fairly clearly belies the vetigo expressive of religious horror; Antlophobia and Thalassophobia can be neatly tied to the ancient deluge metaphores and to “oceanic feelings” themselves.
However, the objectification of dread is much more difficult to see in phobias such as Melophobia, Equinophobia or Parthenophobia.
Yet a similar mechanism is conceivably at work with fetish.
Early Freud was notoriously superficial; ‘dread’ rather than “shame” might be a more apt description. And while “whatever he focuses on” may be hyperbole, the function of fetish as an objectifying repressor of dread could still be valid.
(Discussing William James’, Jon Mills quotes Freud, showing Freud’s superficiality in regard to oceanic feelings,
Freud explains oceanic feelings in his trademark style.)
Eisoptrophobia/Catoptrophobia (my own phobia) could be the ‘mirror’ image of an a narcissistic auotoeroticism-- a strech; however the long line of concordance between phobias and fetishes can not easily be dismissed:
To further elaborate the point, consider the mirror image of the following,
Years ago I read an anthology of autobiographical accounts of schizophrenia, among these stories was one titled “The Train God” about a man who had come to associate religious dread with trains. At some other time I recall reading about women who were sexually aroused by trains. A phobia of trains is called Siderodromophobia.
The relation between the origional anamistic meaning of fetish and the psycho-sexual meaning is a strong one. The fetish object conjures up and has encorporated religious feelings in more or less the same way that sexual fetish has erotic feelings. At some level, both fetish and phobia are tools of objectification and repression; this is particularly the case in so far as sex is the mirror image of religiosity: Sex and Death. Or in stronger terms, Sex is a denial of Death.
.
Aren’t you guys going a little overboard on this theme?
Isn’t it at least conceivable that fetishes are not repressed fears, as you guys seem insistant to prove, but simply a seperate outlet for self enjoyment, much like a hobby?
The problem with most research on fetishes is that, in addition to being little more than theoretical research, is that society still frowns on fetishes to an extent—thus, they are seen as objects of a person’s internalized fear, or are grouped with some other negative connotation…and, to complicate it further, there’s also the fact that you all seem to agree that ALL fetishes come from a singular problem.
I’d like to propose the unthinkable: That the development of fetishes is caused not necessarily by fear (though, yes, I can see that Freudian Reaction Formation could account for some of them), but that indeed is individual to each senario.
For example, from the discussion thus far, it can be assumed that the expected reason for a dominatrix to dominate is a fear of being dominated. In some cases, yes, this is true. But you can’t turn that into a generalized rule, as others may be dominating because of an overwhelming or narcissistic personality. Furthermore, still others might just be demonstrating a redirection of violent urges into a semi-non-violent medium.
The submissive might be afraid of choice, of the unsheltered wasteland of society. However, they may also simply be meek, and enjoy pleasing people.
There’s hundreds of explinations, and I really think that generalizations cross the scope of fetishism might be going a bit too broad — and the dissection taking into account the social disapproval of such actions.
So, I leave with a few questions:
Are all fetishes equal?
Can you honestly say that all of them, the watersports, the single tails, the bondage enthusiasts, the hemophiliacs, the cumguzzlers and the toymen all become that way from a single psychological function, or is it more true that each has their own reason for approaching fetishes?
If the answer to the above was yes, that they do, then what is the necessary or supplimentary condition? What event or trauma is trademark and found throughout all people of a kinky nature?
And last, but not least, do you smell something burning?
These explanations are too ‘Early Freud.’ The dominatrix is reacting to a confrontation with God. If a direct correlation were to be drawn, the dominatrix would suffer from a sort of Jonah Complex (“The Jonah Complex is partly about fear of losing control, annihilation, disintegration…” -Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature). Or more exactly, the horror of envelopment: “You hurled me into the deep, into the very heart of the seas, and the currents swirled about me; all your waves and breakers swept over me… The engulfing waters threatened me, the deep surrounded me…” Jonah 2:3-5; or as Jim Morrison said, “No one here gets out alive.” Or as Sartre has Inez speak in No Exit “…but you can’t prevent your being there…” If, “all fetishes [are] equal,” the dominatrix is encorporating her dread of God’s domination into her fetish and, identifying with the aggressor, displaces her bondange under God upon her submissive. “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” Ephesians 5:22.
It is not the “unsheltered wasteland of society” but of the universe that the submissive has confronted and recoiled in dread before. Or if you prefer, it is dread at his existential freedom that the submissive fetishizes. It is ironically exactly in the thaumaturgical microcosm of the physicalized metaphysical dread scenario that the submissive can gain control over his situation.
A protology of fetish ought to consider the moment of confrontation between the self and the galactic or oceanic. Genesis of a fetish could be seen as a “Reaction Formation” in so far as the ego recreates and relives in a controlable way a microcosmic physicalized repressed version of the dreadful instant of man-God confrontation; that interpretation is especially valid inlight of the fetishist’s blocking of religious dread by it’s opposite: sex.
.
