Fetishes, Philes, and Deviancies
Several years ago I began using the word "fetish" to describe my proclivity towards tickling, though I knew it wasn't exactly the right word. If I understand correctly, the act of ascribing sexual characteristics to an otherwise nonsexual object is considered a fetish. For example, someone has a shoe fetish if they become sexually aroused by shoes, because he/she ascribes sexual qualities to shoes even though shoes in themselves are not "supposed" to be sexual objects.
Obvious problems arise. By what standard is an object considered nonsexual? No one speaks of a vagina fetish, because the sexuality of that organ is beyond question -- by general agreement. The difference between a shoe and a vagina seems clear enough, but it is tricky to put it into words. Just how is it that "general agreement" decrees a shoe to be nonsexual? One way of looking at it is to say that the primary function of a shoe is to cover the foot and provide protection for it. But there is a preponderance of instances in which a shoe may be intended for much more than that (just ask Manolo Blahnik) -- clearly, some shoes are designed to make the foot more sexually attractive. Therefore, if I am sexually aroused by a shoe that is intended to arouse, how can I be said to have a fetish?
The difference lies in the object of arousal. A shoe may be designed to make the foot more sexually attractive; it is arguably thus not a fetish if a man is aroused by such a foot (though some will still say it is, because of the presumably nonsexual essence of a foot). However, if the object of arousal becomes the shoe itself and not the foot, I believe we have, by definition, a fetish.
But really, this is all only so much quibbling over trivial details. The definitions of words are arbitrary. Definitions should be clear and generally accepted, so that the function of words (to facilitate communication) can be achieved. I don't really care what "fetish" means, so long as it means the same thing each time it is used by different people in different parts of the world.
In saying so, though, I contradict myself. I said earlier that I began using the word fetish to describe my love of tickling even though I knew it wasn't the right word. It isn't the right word, because tickling is an action and not an object. Some people tend to use the word "fetish" to refer to any sexaully arousing act or object that dominates all others. So if I am a man who is sexually aroused by breasts and vaginas and mouths and asses, people will not say I have a fetish for these things because 1) they're generally accepted to be sexual in nature, and 2) my desire is distributed among them rather than concentrated on just one. Now, while I do like all those parts, and many others, the fact that my PRIMARY sex drive is towards the act of tickling makes me feel as though the word fetish is appropriate, even though I might argue that by definition it isn't.
So why do I want to use the word? The answer lies in taking control, in seizing power over the shame and guilt that the majority of us feel or have felt. I have this dirty little secret: I love to tickle. I am mortified by the idea that anyone will ever find out -- even the women I tickle. I live with fear of humiliation. So what do I do? One day I finally decide that I (stress the "I") will be the one to call myself what I am. I (again stress the "I") will name myself. Do I have a fetish? Damn right I do! And I will take the power away from that word by using it myself; I will change society's perception of that word, and destigmatize it, much the same as homosexuals who marched in the 70's and 80's chanting "we're here and we're queer!" and the black rapper Ice-T when he begins the song "Straight Up Nigga" by saying "Damn right I'm a nigga, and I don't care what you are, 'cause I'm a capital N-I double-G E-R." So my use of the word fetish is not driven by a desire for linguistic accuracy, but rather by the much more powerful desire for self-determination.
Nowadays I use the word fetish more for convenience than anything else; which means I am once again using it as a means of facilitating communication. I told my girlfriend that I have a tickling fetish because I knew that would most effectively convey the idea that tickling is what sexually arouses me. Thanks to dvnc, I now believe that "deviancy" is the most correct term; try telling your new girlfriend you have a "tickling deviancy," though. Sounds much worse than fetish.
Point is, choose your words for the occasion. In here, we're all tickling deviants. Out there, "deviant" still has such a negative sound to it that I don't use it. "Fetish" has begun to be destigmatized in certain segments of society, especially with bondage going almost mainstream, and effectively communicates the idea behind our love of tickling, even if it is technically not correct.
glen
