The problem with Freud’s theory is it doesn’t account for any women who might have fetishes and regardless of the behavior being predominantly male⁶ especially when taken to the extreme, it is possible for women to have fetishistic tendencies too.

Before we completely dismiss poor Freud as a misguided miscreant, his theories derived from anecdotal observations rather than scientific study have not been altogether disproved by the application of more empirical methods. Freud had made a worthwhile connection between human sexuality and conditioning, something that continues to be studied and explored by 21st century investigators. Evidence of sexual conditioning was published in the results of an experiment presented by Dr. Lique M. Coolen at an April 2003 Experimental Biology conference in San Diego, California. Male rats who repeatedly had sexual intercourse with female rats in a specific cage showed elevated levels of "pleasure-inducing chemicals in the brain" simply from being placed in that same cage even when there were no longer female rats or even the scent of female rats still present in the empty cage⁷. If a rat can make connections between its surroundings and the likelihood of engaging in sexual activities, one could hypothesize that human beings might make similar connections. In the case of objects becoming associated with sexual acts and therefore producing sexual arousal, conditioning could explain a sexual fetish, although the rat experiment doesn’t necessarily explain how a human being would connect truly nonsexual objects with the concept of sex. It would seem more logical from a layperson’s perspective that the sight of a bed or lingerie would induce sexual excitement, as the connection to said items with the possibility of engaging in sexual relations is relatively obvious for most people.

Another more modern theory about fetishes also doesn’t completely discredit poor unpopular Freud, since it too places the cause of fetishistic behaviors firmly in the developmental stages of infancy. While Freud was very big into the concept of childhood trauma causing permanent changes to the way someone thinks even as an adult, other theorists simply consider more mundane, everyday development and interaction as affecting one’s personality and expression as an adult. There is no need for a trauma to occur for long lasting memories and associations to take effect, but simply the malleability and impressionability of a child’s mind is more than enough to predicate permanent formations of connections between external stimuli and internal reactions. Evidence of this kind of “imprinting” of offspring is most obvious in the animal kingdom and most specifically in the world of birds. Probably the best-known researcher into this field was Konrad Lorenz, who demonstrated that geese hatched in an incubator would make a parent-offspring bond with the first moving object they saw at birth. You may be familiar with pictures of Lorenz taking walks while being followed by a gaggle goslings, the baby birds would bond with him as if he (most specifically his wading boots) were their mother or maybe the movie Le Peuple Migrateur where geese fly in formation behind a hand glider⁸.

Sexual imprinting is the theoretical process by which offspring learns what makes a sexually attractive mate, if this process is disrupted as occurred for the geese in Lorenz’ experiment, then the attraction could end up being for a pair of shoes instead of an adult of the same species. Obviously, there are few drawbacks to the above theory since it might explain how a son learns that his ideal mate should be like his mother, but then presumably the female offspring would have to recognize that her goal was to be like her mother rather than be attracted to her mother. Also counter-intuitive to the above is a theory known as the Westermarck effect that suggests that overexposure and daily intimate contact creates reverse sexual imprinting by which offspring living in daily close proximity to one another like brothers and sisters for example become desensitized to later sexual attraction and close bonding with these domestic cohabitants⁹.

Rather than delve into the complicated and controversial area of childhood sexuality, there are some more adult-related theories on what creates fetishes. One comes once again from the aforementioned study of birds and I think provides a more likely explanation for the popularity of fetish sites, magazines, conferences and culture in general. It has to do, at least in my mind, very much with the post-modern, pop culture in which we live these days. The previously mentioned Lorenz performed another experiment that showed that birds would be attracted to brooding eggs that looked like their own species’ eggs but were bigger. Another scientist, Niko Tinbergen did further tests that proved that Herring Gull offspring were more attracted to begging for food from a red knitting needle with three bright white bands painted around it than an accurate three-dimensional model of a parent's white head and yellow bill with a red spot. Both Tinbergen and Lorenz hypothesized that there was an innate releasing mechanism activated by a super releaser stimulus, like an oversized egg or the brightly colored neck of a knitting needle.

Currently such a concept of hidden triggers has been put aside but nevertheless the idea of a simple stimuli being able to elicit a complex and strong response is still accepted¹⁰. The idea of super stimuli is so obviously demonstrated in our daily lives. We are constantly bombarded in every direction by advertising for new products that are bigger, better and faster. Take for example much of the junk food on the market today, it is chuck full of more sugar, fat and salt than not only a person could possibly need in one sitting but arguably than a person can even taste or appreciate. On the other end of the spectrum, we have sugar-free, fat-free and even calorie-free items. It’s not just food that has extreme super versions to stimulate your attraction. Think of women’s bodies. On the one hand, you have supermodels that are so thin that presumably, they are anorexic, they have no curves whatsoever, no hips, no butt and barely any breasts. Then you have porn stars, they have ridiculously large breasts, have hips and ideally a prominent round butt. Both images represent an ideal of the female form, however they are both extreme in very opposite ways.

The argument could be made that people have begun to turn towards fetishistic behavior because our over stimulated senses need ever-increasing stimulation to compete with the constant super stimuli around us. Images of sexuality are rampant on television, in magazines and on billboards and these images are desensitizing us to normal arousal responses especially when faced with our own often more average bodies and average sexual partners¹¹. By introducing some form of fetish into the bedroom, you can supercharge your sex life, while not having to conform necessarily to an unachievable physical goal for yourself or your partner¹².

Finally, from my personal perspective after reading several articles regarding differences between how men and women perceive sexuality, fetishism seems like a natural progression for male sexuality to reach and an equality logical evolution for female sexuality under the pressure to mitigate differences between the sexes¹³. It is an often-accepted gender difference that sex for men is a physical act while for women it is ideally about making a spiritual, mental or emotional connection with someone. Men are seen as needing to objectify women sexually to remove the pressures and complications of being expected to connect on more intimate level when in engaging in sexual relations.

If a woman is reduced to the sum of her parts, breasts, buttocks and overall physical attractiveness, then it is easier not to see her as a person but more as an object for sexual fulfillment. Obviously, such a need could translate in extreme cases to not involving a physical person at all, but into objects and items of clothing that represent the idea or concept of a woman. For men suffering from issues of low self-esteem or a need for complete control, focusing on a stiletto heel could offer a high level of security in the sense that a shoe can’t reject you, place any demands upon intimacy and is 100% under the control of its observer.

For women in our society, however outwardly the flaunting of sexuality seems to be condoned by multiple images of sexually suggestive if not explicit female sexuality, there is still a double standard by which women are made to feel as if they are compromising their self-worth by appealing to a man’s need to objectify his partners. It is difficult therefore for a woman to express herself sexually without having to uphold the belief that she should always expect more from intimacy than merely physical contact for the sake of pleasure alone. Agreeing to partake in fetishist behavior allows a woman to empower herself as an object, since a male partner dependent on a fetish objects or merely fetish rituals appears not to be objectifying a person but an object or an act, which is socially less demeaning to the woman¹⁴.

The blatant objectification involved in fetish sex requires explicit rather than implied consent on the part of both partners. The necessity for role-play and shared fantasy creates the idea of playing a game or leaving the confines of reality, which allows both the male and female partner to express feelings that might otherwise be inhibited by societal pressures to conform to gender specific stereotypes regarding issues of control, emotionality and self-esteem. Ironically it is the very social conventions at which fetish sex balks that make it so appealing, the forbidden fruit forever tastes sweeter.

Overall, whether you believe in some sort of childhood cause for fetishes or whether you see it as an adult’s need to escape the daily pressures of conformity, the idea of any sexual act or preference being healthy or normal simply comes down to whether it enhances the life of the individual or detracts from his/her wellbeing. Fetishes only become a problem when the fetishist cannot function within society as a whole as well as within interpersonal relationships with his/her partners. If an obsession with a certain type of object or sex act induces a person to perform illegal or dangerous acts then obviously the issue is not the specific desire but the method by which the individual chooses to fulfill that desire. Most of us can find healthy outlets for our most creative fantasies and recognize that good sex always requires full-consent by all parties involved and no one should be hurt (at least not more than he/she enjoys pain). For most of us, fetishes merely spice up our sex lives and serve as an enhancement not a replacement to healthy intimacy with our partners.

References

6. “A monopoly of perversion.” Psychology Today, March 1992. Psychology Today Online, 20 Jul. 2005.

7. See number 5.

8. "Imprinting." Wikipedia. Wikipedia, 2005. Answers.com GuruNet Corp. 20 Jul. 2005.

9. Ibid.

10. "Superstimulus." Wikipedia. Wikipedia, 2005. Answers.com GuruNet Corp. 20 Jul. 2005.

11. Nikki Katz “Women’s Issues, Body Image Statistics.” About, 2005. About.com 20 Jul. 2005.

12. “An Inside Look into S&M.” Psychology Today, November/December 1995. Psychology Today Online, 20 Jul. 2005.

13. See number 6.

14. Marianne Apostolides “The Pleasure of Pain.” Psychology Today, September/October 1998. Psychology Today Online, 20 Jul. 2005.