Destinysskeins
Posts: 267
Joined: 7/1/2004
Status: offline
|
Greetings,
*smiles* i'm not surprised that most here are not flattered by Frued's assessment of the term fetish. But then i'm not a fan of Freud and identify much more strongly with Jung's concepts & theories.
The DSM defines a fetish - or more specifically a paraphilia as a object or act that is necessary to the participant in order to achieve sexual release or stimulation. However, this in itself is not sufficient to rate a diagnosis. Distress in the participant within society must be present for a diagnosis to be rendered necessary.
The Paraphilias are characterized by recurrent, intense sexual urges, fantasies, or behaviors that involve unusual objects, activities, or situations and cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. [493]
Note three things: the objects or activities are "unusual"; distress, even without impaired functioning, constitutes sexual mental disorder (psychic pain is a noxious condition to be remedied); and the fantasies, urges, or behaviors--not something else--cause the distress. DSM-IV lists eight numerically coded paraphilias: Exhibitionism, Fetishism, Frotteurism, Pedophilia, Sexual Masochism, Sexual Sadism, Transvestic Fetishism, and Voyeurism. DSM-IV expands its list of paraphilias in its diagnostic category "Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified" (532), adding telephone scatologia, necrophilia, partialism, zoophilia, coprophilia, urophilia, and klismaphilia.14
DSM-IV asserts that being unusual (deviant) is necessary for sexual fantasies, urges, or behaviors to be paraphiliac, but not sufficient: "Neither deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) nor conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are mental disorders" (xxii). There must also be distress or impairment in functioning (xxi). But if it is unlikely that there could be sexual deviance but no conflict with society's sexual norms, it is also unlikely that there could be sexual deviance but no distress. To the extent that this distress is exogenous, no one qualifies as a paraphiliac. This is paradoxical. Paraphilias are sexual mental disorders for DSM-IV in part because they are unusual; but in virtue of being unusual, their associated distress might be exogenous, which blocks the diagnosis.
Basically what is meant by exogenous distress is the participant's act of internalizing the stigmas prevalent in mainstream society in regards to their paraphilia. For example, a masochist who needs pain inflicted upon his/her body in order to achieve sexual release might internalize society's views of such and thus either not seek out sexual companionship or participate in non-sadistic sexual play (thereby depriving themselves of sexual release) in order to appear 'normal' to themselves & others. In doing so, they are suppressing a portion of themselves that will invariably appear in other aspects of their lifes be it depression, frustration, anger, etc.
So really - it's not society who is causing this distress but the participants inability to understand their own desires and put aside the societal influences present.
That leads me into Jung's views on this matter....
Try pulling up Google searches for Jung's views of fetishism. It's hard, there's not an abundance - now try the same with Freud. 
This is because Jung did not view these activities to be abnormal. Rather, he viewed them to be a portion of what he referred to as the 'shadow'. The shadow, according to Jung, is a part of our unconcious where we dump those parts of us that we can not conciously define & cope with. If the issues contained within this shadow are not dealt with then they begin to manifest themselves in varying manners within our day to day lives. He proposed embracing these issues, understanding them and where they might arise from and coping with them conciously. Thus, if a need for a specific object in order to attain sexual fulfillment is present then that 'dark side' or 'shadow' should be embraced and fulfilled rather than suppressed by our concious psyche.
To go on with the pyschiatric evaulation of this - it would be possible to eventually 'un-condition' oneself for the need of this object once the base of the fetish is understand should that be desired. However, it's my opinion that this would only work if the subject genuinely prefers the absence of the fetish for themselves and is not doing such out of an internalization of societal influence. Otherwise the fetish is embraced and explored within the context and familiarity of others who share the same fetish or are open to such. In doing such, one is spared the harmful side effects of suppressing their 'shadow' and is not affected in their interactions with society and thus are not diagnosable as 'paraphiliacs' and are, in fact, participating in normal, healthy sexual expression.
_____________________________
Wilted petals fall from a rose like bitters tears wrung from a heart whose dreams have shattered. What hope for the future can be seen by eyes that are darkened with sorrow neverending?
i'm not manic-depressive, i just have an elliptical personality
|
Bondage, D/s, Sadomasochism & Fetishes - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread