Can anything be a fetish?
ROBERT KOWALCZYK: Yes! And anyone can be a fetishist. Because the essence of fetishism lies in the fact that we achieve full sexual satisfaction, for example, through contact with an object, a body part, or a combination of both.
If there’s no object, is there no sex?
There is sex, but there is no full satisfaction. It’s a very complex phenomenon, but generally speaking, there are three types of fetishes: body parts, artificial extensions of the body—such as clothing—and textures. But to understand the psychopathological connotations of the term, we must go back to the beginnings of sexology as a science, that is, to the 19th century, when extreme sexual negativity prevailed: at that time, anything that did not conform to a narrowly defined norm was classified as a deviation.
Only the missionary position.
And to the convert! Because there must always be two sides, after all. So first of all: sex is bad, and it certainly shouldn’t be a source of pleasure, especially for women. And what about a fetish as a love for a stimulating element! The foundations were laid for concepts such as deviance, perversion, and sexual perversion—today these terms are no longer used in medical language because they are too stigmatizing. Now we talk about variations in sexuality, so it’s more subtle and affirmative—if, for example, you like having sex in boots, that doesn’t classify you as a deviant.
In Portuguese, “fetish” means an object endowed with powers.
And fetishism is the worship of inanimate objects—the original meaning was religious.
Fetishism and religion are phenomena often linked: before Pope Francis’s visit to the United States, I saw cross-shaped sex toys in sex shops in Philadelphia. The connotation is clear. The motif of the cross as an erotic object can also be found in Ulrich Seidl’s film “Paradise: Faith.”
But how does a fetish develop in a person? Especially in men, since women are much less likely to be fetishists.
In male sexual development, puberty is a critical period—during which, among other things, sexual identity is established. Disturbances during this phase can lead to atypical preferences later on—it may turn out that sexual desire has become fixated on a specific object—an item or a body part. Such a shoe or a certain fabric becomes the primary source of satisfaction, and later, contact with a partner lacking that specific attribute is no longer fully satisfying. Added to this is the learning process, namely the association of specific stimuli. Some are more susceptible to this, others less—we don’t know why. For example, a guy who repeatedly masturbated in a laundry room filled with the scent of freshly washed clothes will later fail to achieve maximum satisfaction without that scent.
And women?
Women have a slightly different dynamic of sexual development; they are less prone to intense fixations on objects or specific body parts, and more focused on relationships. Sometimes, elements of fetishism based on a deep bond with a partner are observed in women, which they associate with that specific man—such as, for example, his scent.
Oh no, I can’t listen to this anymore! After all, women also want to have affairs and wild sex without commitment. They don’t want a long-term relationship after every sexual encounter.
I know, it’s terribly sexist and heavily phallocentric, but that’s probably how it is! In women, a focus on connection usually dominates, while in men it is weaker. This is due to a different set of biopsychosocial conditions for each gender.
Do you ever see female patients who come in with phallophilia? That is, those who love only large penises?
This fetish is culturally conditioned—because what does a small penis mean? Medically speaking, we have micropenis, which is four centimeters or less. And if we’re talking about function, meaning procreation, size doesn’t matter. But today, the cult of the large penis dominates. In antiquity, for example, a large penis was considered barbaric, and a small one noble. Fetishes are culturally conditioned. What do you think is the most common fetish today?
I’m torn between feet and latex.
Exactly! And in the 19th century, it was silk and fur.
Venus in Fur.
That’s very interesting—that book was written by Leopold von Sacher-Masoch—the term “masochism” comes from him. He’s sort of our author; he was born in Galicia.
I sense pride in your voice.
A bit, yes, because the French have their Marquis de Sade, and we in Eastern Europe have our masochist. To paraphrase Maria Janion, we are a nation that needs suffering to function—apparently not only in a patriotic context, but also a sexual one.
I don’t want to complain, but I think it used to be more romantic—nice, noble materials; now it’s rubber and plastic.
Really? In that case, take a look at silk: after all, it comes from a silkworm cocoon! Or fur stripped from some animal. It’s about associating a specific material with a pleasant experience. Besides, latex simply didn’t exist back then, so it couldn’t have been a fetish.
At the beginning of the 20th century, hands were the strongest fetish.
Not only because they were one of the few exposed parts of the body, but also because men associated them with a tool for masturbation.
Now we have feet. What’s the deal with them?
It’s hard to explain unequivocally. In Western culture, small feet are considered attractive in women, and medium-sized feet in men. In Eastern culture, they were deformed—for some, this might be a fetish; for others, an anti-fetish, meaning something repulsive. Take tattoos, for example: in Europe, the UK probably has the most. And there they are perceived as an additional attribute that enhances attractiveness. But in Japan, you can’t go to the beach with a visible tattoo—because it’s a sign of the mafia. You have to cover it up.
Various behaviors can also be anti-fetishes.
I recall a scene from Małgorzata Szumowska’s film “Sponsoring,” in which a man urinates on a woman during sex. We can view this in the context of a fetish, because for some people, urine can be one. But for someone else, it will be an element of humiliation, a violent game. Problems begin when a fetish, which is supposed to be an element of arousal, starts to replace the person. What drives fetishists to sexologists’ offices is, among other things, suffering, because, for example, their relationship is falling apart. Or crossing some kind of boundary—moral, legal.
I imagine there are plenty of fetishes that patients do not admit to. For example, arachnephilia. Spiders are the fetish.
In Antoni Kępiński’s *On the Psychopathology of Sexual Life*, there is a case described of a patient who would tear off the wings of insects and insert them under his foreskin.
And mysophilia?
Dirt and soiling—that’s a very common fetish! But let’s flip it around and look at how much of a fetish cleanliness is today. For years there was no access to water, and what happened?
I’m very glad I wasn’t alive back then.
But people managed somehow! And they had sex. That was the norm for them—washing less often than we do now. Today you have to be as sterile as a test tube, waxed, and groomed. Cleanliness is a very strong fetish today.
And candaulism?
Showing your partner naked to other men, e.g., her photos.
Agalmatophilia.
The Warsaw Mermaid, Nike! There are people who get aroused by the sight of statues.
Which fetish surprised you the most?
Buildings. I saw a documentary about a woman for whom a building is a fetish.
Does she want to make love in it?
She wants to make love with it. The building is her lover; she’s aroused by the texture of the walls—she rubs against them, kisses them, touches them, caresses them.
What kind of building is it?
It’s different buildings; she changes them like lovers.
She wanders around some city, sees it, and suddenly—bam!
It’s him! She lights up immediately.
It’s like if I were walking around Barcelona, saw a handsome brunette, and picked him up. But for her, it’s a building?
The Sagrada Família is her fairy-tale prince.
I’m a little afraid to ask any more questions. Do you have a fetish?
Unfortunately not. But I’m still looking.
"ELLE" No. 01/2018
