What constitutes a 'fetish'?

[bttf4444]

I've been wondering about this for the past few days. What makes a 'fetish' different from something you simply enjoy. Like, for instance, I'm probably in the minority here who don't see feet tickling as sexual - and I don't really have any interest in sex or porn. In fact, I'm kind of dismayed by the lack of 'clean' feet tickling videos out there - as many of them do contain nudity.

My interest lies more in feet tickling, then all-around feet or all-around tickling. The other interest that I have is with crying. For some reason, I enjoy imagining Michael J Fox (or one of his characters) crying about as much as I enjoy imagining him getting his feet tickled. I have seen a few people mention about a 'crying fetish' - even though it's not as commonly heard of as a 'tickling fetish'.

I've also got to thinking about other things I really enjoy. I love Christmas lights and lava lamps, yet I've never heard of a 'Christmas lights fetish' or a 'lava lamp fetish'. Also, I really enjoy motion - like swinging, bouncing, or riding - and, again, I never heard of a 'swinging fetish', a 'bouncing fetish', or a 'riding fetish'.

So, anyway, I guess what I'm trying to figure out is - what sets a 'fetish' apart from something you simply enjoy? Is it possible for one to enjoy feet tickling, without it being a 'fetish'?

 

[Ticklerguy4u]

I believe a fetish has to do with a contant physical action on yourself/others causing a emotional response..not too sound intelligently nerdy here.

If you love to look at christmas lights and they make you feel good inside then no one bats an eye. Especially because its why they are put there..to look decorative and beautiful.
However, if you told someone I love to wear the lights or have my partner wear the lights and walk around the house (and serious about it)..then you may get some looks.

So as long as you keep your loves and desires away from your body or your partners body then it's not defined as a "fetish"

 

[EBunbury]

In its original usage, "fetish" was a psychiatric term referring to an object which without which a patient could not achieve sexual satisfaction or arousal.

Those of us with an interest in non-mainstream sexuality have approriated the term to refer to our unusual sexual interests. In that sense, the term has many different definitions. Some people still keep some aspect of the original meaning, and define it as an interest without which they cannot be sexually satisfied. Most of us use the term more loosely to mean a strong, non-mainstream sexual interest, such as tickling. People today use the term in so many differnt ways that it's actually starting to fall out of favor.

One thing seems to be common for almost everyone who uses it, it has a sexual connotation. I may really enjoy Christmas lights, but unless they cause sexual arousal in me, I wouldn't use the term fetish.

🙂 E. Bunbury

 

[bttf4444]

Okay, I guess the thing is, I'm not currently interested in sex - so I don't really know what it means to be aroused sexually. In fact, porn is a real turn-off for me - so the question is, is it possible to have feet tickling obsession without it being a 'fetish'?

 

[Ticklerguy4u]

Okay, I guess the thing is, I'm not currently interested in sex - so I don't really know what it means to be aroused sexually. In fact, porn is a real turn-off for me - so the question is, is it possible to have feet tickling obsession without it being a 'fetish'?

True, people assume that every fetish has to do with a sexual turn-on but that isn't always the case. I believe it's the action that IS the turn on. Sort of like a eurphoria. I still think it has to do with a person using the desire, object, or act as something that society doesn't use it for or constantly use.

As for tickling, people tickle but for those of us who like it all the time. It is considered a fetish because it is taking something that society doesn't use constantly but only as a way of flirting.

 

[911]

Okay, I guess the thing is, I'm not currently interested in sex - so I don't really know what it means to be aroused sexually. In fact, porn is a real turn-off for me - so the question is, is it possible to have feet tickling obsession without it being a 'fetish'?

Not interested in sex, I envy you. I wish I had no interest in sex. You must be a woman.

 

[bttf4444]

You're right. I'm female. I do admit that I have a certain attraction to Michael J Fox - but I would rather be held tenderly or hugged by him, than to have sexual intercourse with him. Of course, he's already married to Tracy Pollan - and I only wish the best for them. I guess, if it was possible to clone people, I would like a 1985 version of him for myself - but I would rather hug him, cuddle with him, and tickle his feet - rather than have sexual intercourse with him. I guess he just strikes me as a real tender and sensitive guy - and that's why I'm attracted to him.

 

[Fire_Sprite]

Not to sound presumptuous or anything but, how old are you?

 

[Speedbump]

Yeah, I don't understand how someone who is old enough to come to this site could have absolutely no idea what it's like to be sexually aroused.

I am also not in the least bit into sex and porn (well, any of the usual non-tickling related stuff), but I still get turned on by tickling (not so much now as I used to, but meh) -- that doesn't mean I wanna go have sex. I'd be perfectly happy cuddling, tickling, etc., forever without sex. Still, I do get turned on by it, and it's not just a fascination.

I've never heard of anyone not being aroused at least once after puberty, but hm, I guess anything's possible.

 

[bttf4444]

I'm 29 - and, yes, I am a virgin.

I guess the thing I don't understand is why having a great burst of euphoria is associated with sex. Yeah, thinking about relentlessly tickling the soles of someone's feet (especially if that someone is Michael J Fox) does make me feel great pleasure - but I guess I don't understand why it has to be considered sexual. It certainly doesn't make me feel like having sex.

BTW, whenever I fantasize about MJF or one of his characters being relentlessly tickled on the soles of his feet - I always imagine him modestly dressed.

 

[Scinsor]

You're not interested in sex? Is that even possible? Anyway, about the whole fetish thing...technically, something is only a fetish if it is the only thing that will sexually arouse you. So, if you have a tickling fetish, then only tickling will arouse you and nothing else. The term "fetish" is thrown around rather loosely around this forum...I think that people associate the term "fetish" with anything that strongly arouses them. That isn't the technical definition of course but who really cares?

 

[Mitchell]

I agree with Bunbury. My understanding of the word "fetish", is that a classic "fetish", is something where a person cannot achieve sexual arousal, without engaging in the fetish. For instance, a person with a foot "fetish" is said to not be able to achieve arousal without touching or being in contact with feet, and a person with a tickle "fetish", is said to not be able to achieve arousal without either tickling another, or being tickled.
For this reason, I usually refer to my enjoyment of tickling, and female feet, as an "interest". While I do enjoy tickling, and female feet, it is not mandatory that I must tickle, or be tickled, or be in contact with someones feet, to achieve arousal.
Maybe I am overanalyzing it here, because I know that both tickling and feet are considered "fetishes", and that this is a fetish site. That being said, we all have different degrees of how these things turn us on, and so, to different people, the definition means different things. My definition is merely what I have read in books, and in agreement with Bunbury.

Just my thoughts,
Mitch

 

[bttf4444]

Yeah, it's probably better just to use the word 'interest' - rather than 'fetish' or 'obsession', as both of those terms tend to carry negative connotations. The word that's often used to discribe what Bunbury says is the original meaning of the word 'fetish' is 'fixation'. The word 'fixation' always carries a negative connotation.

 

[NeitherSparky]

I'm not interested in sex, and class myself as an asexual. I am 32 and a virgin, and will probably stay that way.

Anyways the word "fetish" is sometimes loosely defined as obsession, and not necessarily a sexual obsession, in which case I do have a tickling fetish. Even if it's not really a "fetish" its certainly an obsession. And while it can turn me on (the plumbing works) it does not cause me to desire sex. I don't care to get into a debate with anyone here about how there must be something wrong with me and there is no such thing as asexuality though, I just wanted to let bttf know that she's not the only one here who can greatly enjoy the tickling act without viewing it as a (potentially) sexual act - ever, not just sometimes. I love my TMF friends but I am different from all of them because I never EVER equate sex with tickling.

I still belong here, and so does everyone else with a nonsexual interest in tickling. I just don't click on as many links. 😀

 

[bttf4444]

Thanks, NS! I'm glad to know that there are other people who feel that way. 🙂

 

[Scinsor]

WTF? Asexual? How can you not have sex? Oh man...you don't know what you're missing...

 

[ChosenofMystra]

WTF? Asexual? How can you not have sex? Oh man...you don't know what you're missing...

I dunno, I'm not asexual but I can think of many other ways to have erotic fun than the actual act of sex. Don't get me wrong, sex is great; its just not the highest priority on my list.

 

[Scinsor]

Don't get me wrong, I can also thing of plenty of other ways to have erotic fun (tickling, namely). And it isn't the higest priority on my list either, not by far. But how can someone not have sex at all? That's all I'm asking.

 

[Redmage]

I guess the thing I don't understand is why having a great burst of euphoria is associated with sex.

For most people, that's how sex feels.

Yeah, thinking about relentlessly tickling the soles of someone's feet (especially if that someone is Michael J Fox) does make me feel great pleasure - but I guess I don't understand why it has to be considered sexual. It certainly doesn't make me feel like having sex.

There's sex and sex. It's possible for me to have a very fulfilling encounter with someone - an experience that feels very much like sex to me - and never do anything that most people would consider sex (at least on my side - there are usually lots of orgasms on the other side in a case like that 😉 ). A friend of mine coined the term "domgasm" for this sort of experience.

I mean no offense, but since you are a virgin, are you sure you know what sex feels like? It wouldn't surprise me if the feelings you're describing turn out to be a lot like what sex feels like to you.

As for your original question, there's not necessarily a clear definition of "fetish." Like most things in psychology, it's located on a continuum from normal to abnormal behavior. Almost everyone has some thing or things that turn them on. For example you might hear a man say that he is "a breast man," or a woman talking about a man's butt or shoulders. I happen to have a thing for really long hair myself.

In most people these are simply preferences, or something that catches the eye. However these preferences are more important for some people than they are for others. For a few, they're much more important. Somewhere along that spectrum of importance we start calling that preference a fetish.

These days, "fetish" seems to refer to anything about someone's sexuality that's unusual. It might be a mild preference for something that most people aren't attracted to (such as feet or latex clothing), or a very strong preference for something that's only moderately interesting to most people (such as breasts or black men). If I were guessing, based just on what you've written here, I would say you probably have a fetish for tickling.

 

[911]

What is <i>that</i> supposed to mean? While I agree that life might be a little easier were I not so interested in sex, I find that generalization a bit offensive.

And don't worry, BTTF. While a lot of us may get a kind of sexual satisfaction from tickling, I know plenty of people like you who have a very keen interest in it without it being a sexual thing.

It means without sex on the brain life would be easier at least I know it would be for me. As for the generalization which I'm guessing is me guessing that she was a woman (which she was) what I meant was men tend to have high libidos and a man saying he has no interest in sex is very unlikely or so I believe. I meant no offence. As for BTTF I have no clue what that means if it means big tadpoles turn to frogs your right.

 

[bttf4444]

For most people, that's how sex feels.

There's sex and sex. It's possible for me to have a very fulfilling encounter with someone - an experience that feels very much like sex to me - and never do anything that most people would consider sex (at least on my side - there are usually lots of orgasms on the other side in a case like that 😉 ). A friend of mine coined the term "domgasm" for this sort of experience.

I mean no offense, but since you are a virgin, are you sure you know what sex feels like? It wouldn't surprise me if the feelings you're describing turn out to be a lot like what sex feels like to you.

I guess what I'm trying to ask is why should something that produces those kind of feelings be considered inappropriate for minors? Why does that kind of feeling have to be associated with sex? Why can't it just be clean euphoria?

 

[Redmage]

I guess what I'm trying to ask is why should something that produces those kind of feelings be considered inappropriate for minors? Why does that kind of feeling have to be associated with sex? Why can't it just be clean euphoria?

Boy, this needs some deconstruction. First off, I'm struck by the disconnect here between sex and "clean euphoria." I think that the idea that sex is dirty is a big part of the problem both for minors and adults. It distorts our view of sex and the standards that we have for sexuality.

This is a difficult area because the real issues are more complex and less tangible than that, but no less important. To answer your first question, I think it's perfectly possible and appropriate for children to enjoy that euphoria, whether it's sexual or not. It's not as though children don't have or can't enjoy feelings associated with sexuality in adults. The difficulty lies in other issues associated with sex, and these complicate matters greatly.

The main problem is one of power. Adults have it, children don't, by and large. So to whatever extent an interaction between adults and children is sexualized it is unfair. It's like playing poker with someone who is drunk or mentally incompetent: it's just not appropriate to exploit a disability like that.

These issues make anything having to do with child sexuality difficult. It's not appropriate for adults to engage in sex with children, for the reasons I just described. Children can interact with each other sexually on equal terms, but there we run into issues that require some informed decision-making, especially once they hit puberty and pregnancy becomes a real possibility. It's a fine line to walk, then, giving kids the information they need to deal with these issues while still helping them to avoid situations where one bad decision could radically alter their lives.

Now, obviously tickling poses no risk of pregnancy, disease, or the like. But because it's a form of interaction that can be sexualized, adults who are aware of that are very wary of crossing that line with children. To some extent this is more the adult's problem than the child's, since even if it does edge into that territory for the child chances are the child will not think of it in those terms and won't pursue it down those lines. The lack of hormones makes such feelings self-limiting for a child, you might say. But the consequences if it does become a true sexual interaction are so severe that many adults prefer simply to avoid any chance of it.

Does that make sense?

 

[bttf4444]

Okay, thanks for explaining. I understand better what you're getting at. 🙂

 

[bttf4444]

In short, the reason why I insist on there being a disconnection between "sexual orgasm" and "clean euphoria" is because of the whole age limit thing. I think minors should be allowed to read and watch videos of people getting their feet tickled. A children's book called Fourth Grade Rats has feet tickling in it, and an episode of Sabrina the Teenage Witch has Harvey getting his feet tickled by Mr. Kraft. It's not so much the "sex is dirty" mentality that bothers me, but more the "minors are not legally permitted to view sexual content" part that bugs me. It's not that I think minors should be allowed to view porn, and I think porn is nothing but trash anyway - but I just see no reason for tickling to be a "restricted" activity. Know what I mean? That's why I hate the connection between tickling and sex so much.