Thanks to websites like somethingawful.com, I have peered into many unusual fringe communities and learned about many fetishes. Looking at the nature of various fetishes, and the people that have them, I have noticed some patterns.
In the case of feeders. Plushies, Necrophiliacs, and robot fetishsists, the ultimate point of the fetish seems to be control. All of these fetishes either put a person in a position of helplessness (feeders) or they are using an inadimate object as a sexual surrogate. I realized this pattern when I found out there is a group out there that is obsessed with the idea of ‘fembots’, “feminine” robots/androids. At first I was kind of puzzled why men that are attracted to flesh-and-blood women would prefer a robot emulating one, then I realized the whole fetish is about controlling the other person.
If the presence of Necrophiliacs is any indication, I would not be surprised if there are significant communities of people obsessed with the idea of having sex with someone who is asleep, or having sex with handicapped people or amputees.
Um, what do we think about what? Are there fetishes such as you describe? Yes. Take safe mode off your Google and they’re pretty easy (if queasy) to find.
Do I like or approve of them? Like all things, fetishes between consenting adults are none o’ my business. Obviously, things need to be really clearly talked about in these types of “control” fetishes to be absolutely certain that they are consentual, and I do suspect they’re more prone to abuse situations than vanilla sex.
That’s rather a non-sequitur . . . and why would it be? It’s just a fun place to stick it. (And there’s fewer alternatives if you’re looking for boy-on-boy fucking.)
Although as a joke it would work better if anal sex really were all about control…
Still, what I really wanted to say…and my thoughts may be coloured be being a pervert myself, but still…I think all sexual interaction involves elements of control. Even if it’s just the pleasure of “making” someone else come.
Speaking for myself, the problem I have with the examples in the OP (many of them) is not that they are about control but that they’re opting out of human interaction. What is the point, in the case of dead bodies or robots, of controlling something that doesn’t have a will of it’s own in the first place? Controlling a fellow human is much more interesting.
These kinds of fetishists do away with the idea of rejection. That’s why they are not interested in normal human on human sex- they want to put themselves in a situation where the other person can’t say ‘no’, its the power to do whatever they want.
Yoiu could say that any kind of sex is a form of control, but none so absolute as some of the examples I gave. Someone can’t be ‘rejected’ by a dead body or a robot, thus the appeal some people have.
I think a lot of fetishes are about control but then again maybe every single aspect of civilization is about control and maybe it’s just a matter of how blatantly your chosen activity/hobby expresses it.
The reason I thought of smoking fetishes is that I never used to understand it at all. Then I quit smoking. Now, a few months later I have a lot of sex fantasies involving other people smoking. I try not to think about it because I’m scared that it will turn into a real fetish where it is the only thing I find hot.
I can see having a fetish for controlling people, especially if you are feeling disenfranchised, but sometimes I suspect with internet fetishes there is an appeal in being a joiner. If you sort of think something is hot, maybe cultivating that desire will make you part of a group, and the ony thing you need to join is to have this interest, and maybe that is a strong motivator to find the thing more and more important.
Also, remember in Bruce LaBruce’s “Hustler White” when the chump wanted to hump the stump? So yeah there is amputee sex. But when I think of amputee sex I don’t think of anyone really wanting a helpless person, I think of someone wanting to be “perverse” so that they can confront a part of life that is scary and thus control that. When you are little, you are taught that any type of disfigurement is very scary and horrible, and if you have sex with the stump, you are probably going to be able to look at that type of disfigurement in a whole new light forever. So you have controlled something, but it is more about putting order into the chaos of life.
Another weird thing is that people who have fetishes are actually helpless to their fetish. If you can’t enjoy sex without your fetish, then your fetish is controlling you.
That’s a good point. And one of the things that make it less intersting
But I have to say something here. While there are undoubtedly those who are controlled by their fetish and use them to avoid human contact, the majority of people who have fetishes of one kind or another (and that’s a lot of people) indulge in them in addition to other forms of sex and are certainly not made helpless by them.
And indulging your fetish does not mean you are going to suddenly lose interest in everything else. Quite the contrary. Not doing anything about it can be more likely to turn it into a fixation.
Somebody mentioned Dan Savage. Definatly the guy to take to about fetishes…
Well, strictly speaking, it does. Paraphelias, which include fetishes are defined by the DSM IV as being neccesary for the sexual gratification of the patient.
From this site, as I can’t find a direct link to the DSM IV text:
If it’s something you like but can achieve sexual arousal and performance without, it’s not a fetish, it’s “variety” or “spice”.
Well, yes. If you go by the definition in the DMS IV, it going to be the pathological definition. By, well…definition.
But “fetish” (as well as “sadist” and “masochist”) have a common usage outside of the diagnostic realm.
And “fetish” (and “sadist” and “masochist”) actual something about what the (non-pathological) person is interested in whereas “variety” and “spice” do not…so I’m standing by my informal usage :).
What are feeders. I looked up feeder fetish on google and all I found was
A feeder is someone, usually (but not necessarily) male, in a relationship with a feedee. As the name suggests, the feeder provides the feedee with an abundant supply of food, either to encourage weight gain or simply for delight in the act of feeding.
Is that it? are they controlling the food or force feeding it or what.
thanks!