this is gonna sound strange but my mom told me she had a boyfriend before my dad and who used to poo and not wipe finger in the hole and make her sniff and suck it I was like mom EWWW TMI already I was releived she left him and met my dad so gross!🤮
@@VictorMendez-l6u why the fuck did you feel the need to share that? literally no one will laugh at your story, neither will anyone find it interesting, its just completely un-asked for
I hate that people keep bringing up Fifty Shades as if it's representative of anything acceptable. It was a very frustrating read and had little to no consent and looks nothing like the kink we should promote
it hits the female gaze hard. Rich good looking dude, dark triad traits, and he only wants her. but you gotta have conflict or life gets boring. Need the drama.
50 shades is an awesome book for me, but for other reasons that probably the author didn't planned to come under analysis. For example, it's a good example on how to not write a healthy bdsm relationship. It also is a good example on how people full of money and power take advantage of their wealth in order to get anything they want.
Gosh yeah. Why must the mainstream thing that brings the scene to public attention be such a low quality nonsense, I just can't. I always remind myself that it probably speaks volumes about how abused society is. As this is like yet another example of "wishing abusive behaviour had 'good outcomes' instead of the bad ones they have in reality". ////orz//// Trauma brains are known to struggle feeling safe with the "unknown" even if it's a "way more healthy unknown"
Despite the fact that 50 shades portrays BDSM mostly incorrectly, it was consensual. The default position is that kind of relationship is consent. That's why there is a safe word.
@@Keti9erI really hope you aren't a part of the kink community. For anyone reading, this is a really inaccurate and dangerous point of view. Anyone agreeing with or preaching this sort of behaviour should be avoided at all costs.
Great explanation! I love the idea that all fetishes are kinks but not all kinks are fetishes. Reminds me of how all ovals are circles but not all circles are ovals.
"Oval" isn't a real mathematical shape at all. Ellipses look like "an oval" but they're very precise (and therefore would exclude most "ovals") being the set of points where the sum of the distances between two foci are the same. So, like a circle but you keep track of two distances instead of one. A eclipse is also a circle if its foci are the same point and all circles are elipses. I belive the more common and simple one is "all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares"
From what I’ve heard a fetish is a sexual attraction to a non sexual thing. So basically being sexually attracted to anything other than genitalia. Under this definition ass, and tits would be considered fetishes, and are definitely more popular than feet.
It depends on if the sexuality of the things are to be determined biologically or socially. While biologically boobs are not sexual, there is a social connotation that they are. I don’t think either interpretation is wrong but it’s certainly something to consider in your definition.
That is true but I’d argue that since ass and tits are such popular mainstream fetishes, they’re hardly thought of as such and just seem “normative.” Reminds me of how glasses are an accessibility aid like hearing aids are, but only the latter is really thought of as such since glasses are so normalized
Yeah. That's kinda it. For example, I got a fetish for guys wearing backpacks barechested. Don't know why. I just find it hot. Also, helmeted guys in racing suits
Fetishes often also come from phobias, this may be because the body finds a way to cope with the terror of the phobia by associating it with sexual properties
This is a thought I had too (ok, not phobias in a clinical way, rather fears etc), regarding my own experience. Whilst after the definition in this video not being fetishes, but rather kinks, some (my first kinks I discovered) I connect with some childhood fears and also traumatising images I encountered on the Internet (the latter as a teen).
honestly, this has been my experience. The things that I repress and push away from my outer identity have become the things I need to get off. It's kind of bizarre and sometimes frustrating.
I hadn't expected you to include an explanation of paraphilia along side definitions of kinks and fetishes. I was pleasantly surprised. Well done at a very solid and concise summary.
Ah, kinks are the guys that enjoy a little weed from time to time, maybe some magic mush. Fetishes are the guys tweaking out in the back because they HAVE to have a fix NOW. I can joke about it because I have kinks, fetishes and I am a recovering drug addict.
good comment. i hate and love that comparison. as someone with a drug history i hate it, because its true. as someone with a fetish i love it, because its true.
Non-sexual kink was an essential concept for me to discover as someone with anxiety and sensory issues. I gained an interest in self-tie shibari as a way of essentially making wearable weighted blankets. I like the pressure! But I had to overcome the shame I had for engaging in something people saw as inherently sexual. Still hate that I have to conceal my ties perfectly under my clothing lest people think they're, at best, a titillating fashion statement.
It's a similar idea for me. I don't do it in public but playing into non sexual pet play (wearing collars, asking for head scratches) helps me deal with my anxiety and emotional issues as an autistic girl. It's hard to explain to people that it's not a sexual thing. It helps to be in queer circles that are more understanding of these kinds of needs of mine.
While he's told it, the joke is far older than he was. In the form I first knew it: "Erotic is using a feather. Kinky is using the whole damned bird." 😆
The whole childhood tie to fetishes has always interested me. I have a strong leather, PVC, latex fetish and one of my earliest memories are of my mum's knee-high leather boots (this is back in the 70's). Dr Freud would have a field day with that association, I think.
I have a childhood association where i watched a movie and got one, but i feel confused because i wouldn't really call vore a kink but its not ruining my life or damaging anything and not 100% necessary
From what I've seen fetishes can also be non-sexual. It sometimes refers to just an immense, unusual level of interest/obsession with something. The way I see it, it's a kink but even stronger. A kink is something you enjoy and sometimes partake in. A fetish is something deeply engrained in you. It's like a kink on crack- whether it's a sexual one or not. EDIT: To all the people saying that a non sexual kink or fetish is just a hobby or an obsession.. to put it bluntly, I've seen people who like BDSM, or vore, or transformation, or inflation, or feet, or a whole host or other things, who aren't into it sexually. But I think if any of us heard them saying they're into these things, we would call it a kink or a fetish. Because "hobby" or "obsession" just doesn't quite fit these.
I would hard agree. I was shocked when she said they have to be sexual,especially considering she has spoken with Evie Lupine. Fetishes are commonly associated with sexuality, but are not limited to it.
I would support the definition of “fetish” as an inherently sexual thing, because otherwise it’s just not a very useful word. If a fetish is just an intense/obsessive kink, you could just call it an intense/obsessive kink. If “fetish” refers to a kink that is inherently sexual, then it becomes a useful word for categorization and the conversation surrounding kinks.
@@mlee6050Asexuality is also a spectrum! Not all ace people are completely incapable of sexual attraction, there are so many different kinds of people with all sorts of different experiences. Plus, being asexual is very different from being aromantic. Some people can fully esperience romantic attraction but no sexual attraction, and some people are the other way around, or a mix of both under very specific circumstances.
Humans can’t be Asexual an Asexual creature is a creature that doesn’t need a mate to reproduce 🤓 Btw I probably should has specified but this is just a joke lol I know what that kind of asexual means many words have multiple meanings
My partner when we first got together about 7 years ago admitted that he was into tying up (doesn't matter who, me or himself), maybe because he liked the art form of kinbaku. I admit visually it's pleasing to the eyes, but in practicality, it does not appeal to me in any way. In fantasies I think I'd like to be dominated, but in practicality, I found I like to be in control of what happens to me at any point in time (meaning I like to be able to choose at any point where I move and what I touch), and my partner has admitted that also in practicality while it was nice to look at an bondage it wasn't exactly comfortable for him. So we gave up on our so-called "fetishes" for what we actually do together since in reality they didn't pleasure us. Have we become a bit vanilla in our sexual lives, maybe, but we aren't lacking in affection and sexual tension just because we've realized that the things we used to view as our "fetishes" don't really work for us in the real life.
I feel you on the bondage thing. I've got a bit of background so being restrained, while quite exciting in theory, leads to panic attacks in reality, one of the least sexy things you can have going on in the bedroom. >_
Interesting tidbit about the explanation for foot fetishes: the data that explanation came from is actually pretty old and was collected from a select few individuals while they were undergoing open brain surgery. The different parts of the patients/subjects somatosensory cortices (that part of their brains where touch is mapped) were selectively stimulated and the participants where then asked in which bodypart they felt a corresponding sensation. Now to the tricky part - since genitals still are, and were even more so back then, a pretty private topic, most of the participants didn't even report any sensation in their genitals, so the researchers didn't have a lot of data points for pinpointing them. Now, I learned this a few years ago in my intro to neuroscience course at university, so I don't quite remember if it was ever officially comfirmed, but there's a decent likelihood the researchers just put the genitals at the end of the map because of this missing data/misrepresentation on part of the participants. So they most likely aren't really represented next to the feet - but that map is still printed in many textbooks even, and I've heard other professors refer to it as if it was true, but personally I found this explanation to be much more likely
The data was actually from the 50s, so nearly 70 years old at this point, and to my knowledge had never been reproduced. The theory itself has actually been debunked at this point. A 2014 study, for example, found that foot fetishes (kinks) were actually not at all that common in the first place, and that if there was a connection, it wasn't connected to 'fuzzy' brain boundaries. The fetish, btw, was for items associated with feet, and not with feet themselves. So, shoes, stockings, etc.
There is another point speaking against it. It's mostly men having a foot fetish, but not about their own feet, but about womens feet who are less likely to have a foot fetish. So it's now about it to have a sexual feeling.
This is a really great video. My dad's entire career while I was age 7-20 was around leather fetishes. He made leather related soft porn. It was an interesting time being a teen surrounded by the sex industry, but it definitely taught me a lot of really important and really positive lessons!
@@banquetoftheleviathan1404 that's sparked a memory. All of the models were so lovely but there was one who only ever came to the studio once. I was on the shoot learning about lighting and she said "do you want smiley, or sexy?" Then she did the creepiest weirdest face I've ever seen in my life 😂 the photographer went for smiley!
i kind of wish i got more information about having a fetish as a kid. i’ve had one since i was about 4-5 years old, no idea how it spawned but it hasn’t gone away. i quickly picked up on the fact that i probably shouldn’t share it with others so i’ve kept it secret all these years. the most validating thing i’ve ever been told about sexuality was in middle school when i was told it’s perfectly normal and ok to masturbate in private, i had been doing it prior but it was a relief to find out it wasn’t something “bad” or whatever.
@@hellovoid2104 had no idea it was a fetish at the time or what i was feeling was arousal, i just knew that whenever i encountered it i would feel heat pooling “down there” and i would get flustered and feel awkward and have to deal with it somehow. didn’t connect the dots on it being sexual until middle school when i heard arousal being described in health class.
At that age you statistically couldn’t have had sexual attractions, you could be an outlier by a LONG mile but you shouldn’t get those feeling until 9 at the very earliest, as to my professional knowledge 4 would be unheard of and would need to be investigated
I am 64 and have been interacting with intersecting alternative communities for more than 40 years. I have found the evolving lexicon of terms and phrases to be specious; and, also that it's preferable to ask someone what they mean rather than assume everyone means the same thing.
Re: there being a kink for *everything,* I heard the same about pornography. Fun game is to think of anything and google “kink” with that word. I imagine that would be less traumtizing than adding the word “porn” to your random word search. I’ve never done the latter but have heard that people can be terrified by what they see
I'd say as a sex therapist that usually the shame and stigma around someone's fetish is due to the society they're in (as you brilliantly say) and the silencing/isolation they feel in not being able to share their authenticity. So this video is great as it'll hopefully help someone open up to another and feel seen!♡
For me it's not the shame but rather their initial reaction and how they deal with it afterwards. For example l wouldn't wanna tell someone, and they head back home and think about it as they drive and have an accident. I'd feel guilty.
So, hey, that thing about the sensory proximity in the brain between feet & sexual organs has been entirely debunked. It's just not true. In fact, a 2014 study found that foot kinks are actually not all that common at all, and that people would be more likely to have a fetish for things associated with feet than with feet themselves. It's far more likely that the feet are probably one of the most sensitive parts of the body after the genitals and are also the next most inaccessible in most situations. Also, feet touch the ground, so there's a sense of transgression in being interested in feet as well. Never underestimate the appeal of being transgressive!
@@scribblecloud Things that violate (or are perceived to violate) social norms - think the "forbidden fruit" concept. Sadism/masochism, for instance, could be argued to be slightly transgressive, because the deliberate infliction of pain violates social norms. One theory as to why the majority type of pornography consumed in majority-Republican states in the US involves transgender individuals is that theory of transgression - it's perceived to be a violation of local social norms, which gives it an allure of being "forbidden". It's worth pointing out that social norms are not the same as laws. They may coincide (for instance, rape is both illegal and considered socially unacceptable) but while it's perfectly legal to engage in, for example, urolagnia, most people would consider you at least a little strange if you admitted to getting off on the idea of being peed on.
Great video! The real difference between kinks and fetishes is quite often misunderstood, so thanks for this! We really want to help the Italian community to better understand the world of K!nk and BD5M and the way it is perceived.
Interesting subject, on many levels. For years I did bondage photography, the why I did this was easy..... I liked to put women in bondage, and having a consensual subject was of course required. I roamed around in photography clubs where women interested in modeling were group members. While most women were interested in mainstream modeling, I was amzed that many were willing to give " damsel in distress" LOL, sounded better than using the word bondage a try. I found by chatting, and getting to know them they would open up how they had a fantasy of being bound and even gaged, but never knew how to share the desire with others. The ideal of "I'm just doing a modeling gig" open a safe door to explore the concept. I can say these willing bondage subjects seem to have a normal life, not damaged goods as some would think of them, but healthy mentally, normal in every other way, but had a taboo desire. Speaking for myself, I have a long happy marriage, grown children that are successful, yet, I enjoy this "kink" I guess my point for anyone who is dealing with a fetish, or kink issue, in itself does not make you a bad person, misuse of the desire can lead to trouble.
I'm demi/bi and only recently got together with my first partner. They're awesome, going at my pace etc. All good vibes and has been super easy to discuss kinks, primarily BDSM with them. For me there's a borderline between it being a sensual connecting thing and a sexual thing which I'm still discovering. It's new and unusual for me but also wonderful and I'm looking forward to exploring it all. 😊 My issue is always other people's reaction to it all. Primarily "If you're Demi/Inexperienced, how do you know you like it? I thought you didn't like sex? Etc.." They seem to have a perception that I'm entirely innocent and don't know my own preferences. Also they're worried that he's taking advantage of me. Like we're not both contesting adults with an ability to communicate or we're going too fast. I know it's coming from a place of concern but also feels a bit condescending. 🤷♀️ Anyone any thoughts?
I get what u mean. I'm asexual/demiromantic and into bdsm. It's the only thing that makes me feel anything remotely sexual at all. I am not physically attracted to other people but I am attracted to bdsm dynamics and the actions that can go along with it if that makes sense. It has been hard to accept, but I'm working on it. I despise being that "complicated" and so far I haven't found a partner I'm compatible with yet. But yep, most ppl don't take me seriously due to my sexuality. It's mostly caused by the stigma surrounding the asexuality spectrum. Ppl tend to think we are beings that are repulsed by anything sex related/terrified of it even ( which can be the case for some ppl since it's a spectrum and it's totally fine ). They tend to think being ace means that you're some type of alien or smth it's a very frustrating and dehumanising experience. I always feel like ppl are condescending towards me in that case too, so you're not the only one. Anyways: I think you and your partner know each other best. I know it's hard but you have to quit listening what other ppl try to push on you. Your sexuality is yours to explore and if u have a partner to do that with that's something wonderful. Those ppl who talk shit about you guys are simply terribly uneducated on the asexual spectrum and are talking out of their ass. You are doing nothing wrong, keep exploring yourself and your desires, whatever they might be - as long as you're doing it safely ofc. Idk if my comment helps ( prob not ) but what I'm trying to say is: you're not alone, you're not broken and you're loved. Do what feels right for YOU.
That I find the entire thing w BDSM sounds at least abusive and I can't belive it's becoming socialy acceptable for this to exist and that it scares me, mostls
I want to be. Loved. Be interested in. Be found as fascinating und curious. And to find the idea of hurting me abhorrent in a sense. Like terrible and shocking and most defiantly the opposite of desirable. I find it terrifing that that is normal
@@catsaresocute650 (not judging here, just explaining) It certainly appears that way from an outside perspective, but do keep in mind that this is all done with explicit consent and for the purpose of enjoyment for all parties involved. As someone with much softer fetishes/kinks, I personally don't get the appeal of things like whipping or insults, but I don't judge others for it. Think of it this way: You know how some people will excuse assault by claiming that the victim was "asking for it" when they did not, in fact, say "hey, please do this to me"? Well, with BDSM, everyone involved is _quite literally asking for it._ If someone does it to you without you wanting it, THAT is abuse.
@@catbatrat1760 No. If someone wants to be hurt then that's self-harm, a psychological problem that they should recive help for. If someone wants to hurt others they are dangerus and should definitivly not be encuraged to do it. That stuff shouldn't be accepted it should be maybe treated like drug addicts are. Wrong, yes some people do it and probably crimialising the more hamless things isn't usefull for the affected people, but there should be rehab options for anyone who wants to go out and social workers to help them out
Hannah! Don't forget to promote your Ko-Fi and add it to the description section so that people who can't commit monthly can still support you occasionally!
love the boob pencil holder and thank you for teaching me the difference between fetish and kink, a lot of people often use them interchangeably which makes it all confusing
This was very educational for me! My perception of sex is very warped as a trans person with crippling dysphoria, the way you phrased everything and it explained it in understandable terms, using reassurance to not shame anyone for their own personal interests weather they are open about it or private about it. You seem like such an understanding human and thank you for clearing this up for me!:)
I like to organize kinks in a “tesseract” based on how statistically common they are, how accepted they are in society (including the media), how much risk is involved, and how accessible it is to participate in them in real life.
I've always found the definition of fetish as "necessary for pleasure, arousal and/or orgasm" to be strange and off-base. This would suggest that if someone has a foot fetish, then feet are REQUIRED for them to have sexual satisfaction, and that just doesn't typically seem to be the case. Or, in other words, this definition is out of touch with how most people understand fetishes. Based on my own observation of kink and fetish communities, I would propose pruning the definitions of kink and fetish down to just "not necessarily sexual" and "inherently sexual," and abandon the "preference" and "necessary" language. Or maybe even that is overthinking it at this point. For most people, the words are basically interchangeable now, and maybe that's just the inevitable result of how clunky and confusing their supposed distinctions are.
This does kinda follow my thoughts and ideas of what the differences are. How I dumbed it down was: fetishes are things while kinks are acts. And also, I do believe the level/type of attraction is varries from person to person. For one person's fetish, feet (as an example) is just something nice to look at. Like seeing just a beautiful person walking past you. To another, it is actually essential to their sexual life. Thankfully I am more on the "nice to look at" side of the spectrum for my midriff fetish as it's not necessary for my sexual pleasures. Because if I was on the other side summer would've been hell for me.
same it's so fucking funny to look back on😭😭 so many of my childhood memories are of me having the same fetish i have now it's really fun to occasionally remember something and be like "OH, i liked that thing so much because i was *into* it, gotcha"
Not me having a teacher kink since I was in elementary school 😅😂 (had a huuuuge crush on an art teacher at five years old and a couple of others regarding teaching aids around fifth/sixth grade). Fast forward to me at 30 now and trying to convince my hubby to do more roleplays. Also seeing art of men in dress shirts and ties wearing glasses with a faint stubble and I get so worked up 😅 🥵
So basically I have a women fetish, because that’s the only thing that needs to be present for me to achieve sexual gratification. Everything else is just a kink, since they don’t have to always be present. Thank you for explaining!
Interesting that I recently watched a video by Evie Lupine where they discussed the difference between kinks and BDSM, and how different people see them differently.
What a breath of fresh air you are! At last, an intelligent, balanced and healthy discussion about the very definition of terminology that gets so abused by sensationalized press and people. There are so many travesties of justice going on related to the total and utter ignorance of our sexuality because bigots in our institutions have the power to destroy those who may not conform to their values but who are no risk to anyone.
Thanks, I totally agree with you! It’s really refreshing to have these open and balanced discussions without the usual sensationalism. It’s frustrating how much misunderstanding and stigma still surrounds different aspects of sexuality, often fueled by people in power who don't get it or just want to enforce their own narrow views. Conversations like these are important for breaking down those barriers and creating a more informed and accepting space for everyone.
Moderate detail: Current, paraphilias have been split into paraphilias and paraphilic disroders. The ones with unconsenting subject or putting oneself at great risk go into the paraphilic disorder. For anything to be considered a paraphilia, nowadays, it must be with something that is not a consenting, human, alive and whole (aka not a body part),and the person must feel more attraction to it than to any non-paraphilic subject
The section on paraphilias is incorrect. Firstly, in DSM-5 (2013), paraphilias have been made distinct from paraphilic disorders, which is to say that paraphilias have been depathologised in the DSM (and in the latest edition of the ICD too). A paraphilia is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a paraphilic disorder. Hence paedophilia (for example) is not a mental disorder, but one cannot have 'paedophilic disorder' without also having paedophilia. Secondly, the criteria for a paraphilic disorder are a _or_ b rather than a _and_ b, where a equals experiencing distress and b equals having acted on the paraphilia. These criteria have attracted criticism, and rightly so. The first should be classified as anxiety and/or depression; the second is a legal matter. It's good that you mention homosexuality's previously pathological status, because there's a clear parallel between the treatment of paraphilias in DSM-5 and the two-step depathologisation of homosexuality, which was first replaced with 'egodystonic homosexuality' before being removed altogether. Egodystonic homosexuality meant homosexuality plus distress at being homosexual. No doubt the paraphilic disorders will be removed altogether in future.
Out of all the shit that was said in this video I’m pretty sure I started crying when you brought up the light reflector.. I don’t know if it was the ADHD in me but that shit hit home hard 😂
The definition you gave for kink is the definition of a paraphilic condition, and the definition you gave for paraphilia is actually the definition for paraphilic disorders
1:39 I think you should drop the "within a marriage" part of the definition. Instead, I would have it be "between two consenting adults or teens of similar age".
Excellent presentation and explanations. I grew up in the 1970's when the word "kinky" was de riguer and became ubiquitous. I got the impression that folks were using it to generally describe anything that they did NOT understand. For example: Q: "What do you think of Calculus?" A: "Kinky!"
Props for the definition of kink(s). The definition of fetishes might be correct in the english speaking community but is misused coming from its origin and is thus used different in other germanian languages. The necessity of the fetish is thus not part of e.g. the german use of the word fetish. Actually, the necessity is often described as the criteria making a fetish compulsory and defining it as a kind of mental disorder. In most non-english communities a fetish is thus seen as optional not as necessary. And same thing with the sexual orientation of a fetish: in general a fetish describes the thing that is being fetishized, i.e. worshiped (the term comes from a description of foreign religions and their fetishes, i.e. the things they worship). It does technically not matter for what the thing or body part is fetishized. So one should speak about sexual fetishes and mental disorders concerning certain sexual fetishes in this discussion. The main difference between fetish and kind is thus, that a fetish is describing an fixation to a certain object whilst a kind describes whatever unnormative behaviour. The concept are thus partly contained in another, but in general independent from one another!
I would like to recommend to you the channel of well known writer and spanking fetishist Jillian Keenan, who explains the idea of wether or not a (spanking) fetish is a sexual orientation.
I found this Psychology Today article, of 2016, titled `` No, You Cannot Eradicate A Fetish. `` and it's at least akin to sexual orientation, at least in terms that you can't eradicate/get rid of your fetishes. The latest rendition of the DSM-5 depathologized paraphilia which the article writer, a clinical sexologist, used synonymously with fetish.
It's not particularly uncommon. I mean, you can engage 4 of the 5 senses with it. And when one of those is scent, it can be a pretty powerful attractant.
I think this narrative is outdated personally, the idea of paraphilia comes from a time the DSM was made in hiegenist pre-nazi germany in order to stigmatize, and every edition since then has been liberalizing it to a point where DSM-5 is pretty great, but still, the perspective has remnants of wanting to do arbitrary separation. A kink is something you like outside of the sexual norm, if this kink is unconsensual, then it's unconsensual, if it becomes too problematic in your life, it's either addiction or your own conservatism that clashes with it, or your only way to express a non-normative behavior. Like everything that exists, how much you like a kink is a spectrum. To me there's no such thing as a fetish that's not a kink, no one use uses fetish as in psychiatry, like, it's a "foot kink" that's the most prevalent in the world technically. Same as ADHD or autism for exemple, we're supposed to consider ourselves neurodivergent only if our neurodivergence impairs our everyday life, lie if the amount of executive function we can bear day to day is okay with our functionning etc... there's a problem in the definition itself, it's because the psychiatrist institution was made to discriminate, incarcerate and genocide historically, then left-wing paternalistic conceptions took over past WW2 and the framework evolved towards a constructivist lecture: "you only have a condition if you contextually suffer from it", but it's somehow also embedded in our brains by default and molded by our environment by design. Practically no one says "I don't have ADHD because I'm fine and priviledged" and no one says "I don't have a foot fetish because I'm vanilla althrough I feet like crazy too". There's also freudian bullshit in the area to make things more uselessly complicated, most gen X and boomers only had access to psychoanalytic conceptions because they were still less reactionary that oldschool DSM 3 and 4, and were linked to the sexual revolution era, there's an overlap between the old conception of "aristo-punk BDSM", old psychatric terms and pre-queerness, that was the mood of the counter-culture back then; queers have made a complexte leap from this, kinksters are inbetween... more gatekeeping high-protocol boomers, less science and political theory for the youth to know what is outdated (it took me about a decade of intensive specific interests about kinks, if not a lifetime since teenagehood to reach these conclusions and make links with the overall neuroqueer related topics.)
@i_do_things620 what do you mean? Sorry if I offended you, I just mean that although I'm not personally interested in kinks and fetishes, it was interesting to learn more about it
what would you call something that you find sexually attractive but not necessary for arousal or orgasm? because I personally would still call it a fetish
I think that would mean that being attracted to someone's smile, sense of humour, intellect, ambition or confidence could be considered a fetish. I think when a man gets more attracted to his partner when she wears high heels that is a kink. Him always insisting that she keeps them on for sex is a fetish.
well at least according to what she outlined in this video, it would fall under the definition of a kink. or perhaps something else, but not as fetish as a fetish is defined as being necessary or arousal and/or orgasm.
as someone who has a functioning libido but has never had sex and, to be honest, not even that interested to have it any time soon, i happen to have... some very interesting fetishes. funny how sexuality works.
I am a foot guy. And i dont think that brain theory is correct in all cases. If i understand it properly the crossover thing works if someone is playing with or touching your' feet and you' will get aroused, that theory makes sense. But me touching others or doing things with feet that cant be the same thing because i am not feeling anything on my feet obviously.
@@RossiB172 Yes, but this is not the common foot fetish. The common foot fetish is guys liking girls feet. Not guys liking being handled their own feet or girls being handled their own feet.
@@leobruch3697 well, it directly links queerness with sex and promiscuity, which is already a thing people do. people don't ask cis people "what's between your legs?", unless they have mistaken them for trans. old transphobic men will overtly sexualize trans people - the trans categories in p0rn sites are among the most visited, even though the world's still incredibly transphobic. queer sex should be seen as 'normal' as cis sex. it's been 10 months since watched this video so i don't really remember what they said in it that prompted me to post that comment.
every time someone talks about the difference between kinks and festishes i get confused. cause im pretty sure i have a fetish, but ive had orgasms and been aroused without it plenty of times as well? its just a faster way to 'get there' ? And then people that i talk to about it are like: well its not a fetis then!....and im like... no it definitly is. a very specific trigger that never fails to arouse no matter if its an unsexy context?.... but sure.. i guess youre the expert about my preferences barbara..
I feel like the colloquial usage of the term "fetish" is a bit looser than the medical definition. I would definitely say I've got fetishes, but I'm still capable of getting off without them, but I don't know if there's a medical term for a non-normative sexual desire that you can still enjoy sex without?
I accidentally answered your question lol, indeed this delimitation doesn't make sense: "I think this narrative is outdated personally, the idea of paraphilia comes from a time the DSM was made in hiegenist pre-nazi germany in order to stigmatize, and every edition since then has been liberalizing it to a point where DSM-5 is pretty great, but still, the perspective has remnants of wanting to do arbitrary separation. A kink is something you like outside of the sexual norm, if this kink is unconsensual, then it's unconsensual, if it becomes too problematic in your life, it's either addiction or your own conservatism that clashes with it, or your only way to express a non-normative behavior. Like everything that exists, how much you like a kink is a spectrum. To me there's no such thing as a fetish that's not a kink, no one use uses fetish as in psychiatry, like, it's a "foot kink" that's the most prevalent in the world technically. Same as ADHD or autism for exemple, we're supposed to consider ourselves neurodivergent only if our neurodivergence impairs our everyday life, lie if the amount of executive function we can bear day to day is okay with our functionning etc... there's a problem in the definition itself, it's because the psychiatrist institution was made to discriminate, incarcerate and genocide historically, then left-wing paternalistic conceptions took over past WW2 and the framework evolved towards a constructivist lecture: "you only have a condition if you contextually suffer from it", but it's somehow also embedded in our brains by default and molded by our environment by design. Practically no one says "I don't have ADHD because I'm fine and priviledged" and no one says "I don't have a foot fetish because I'm vanilla althrough I feet like crazy too"."
Yeah same, I started calling my fetish a kink because I realized people think of “fetish” as synonymous with “sexually dysfunctional.” People seem to have this idea that fetishes 1) are something deeply ingrained that you’ve had your whole life, and 2) are the only thing you can get off to. But what that leaves out is that many people experience the first half of that but not the second half. In the community for the kink/fet I have, almost everyone has had that experience. It’s crazy to me that we don’t have a language that actually reflects this
I agree. I absolutely have some very concrete fetishes, but I just can't get on board with the part of the definition that says they are a hard requirement for arousal / climax.
Granted I've never seen Twilight so I don't know the reference but at least I know the IRL version of Sexual Imprinting is not the same. Although it is interesting how narrow normative is, I assume neurotypical is also a requirement to be normative. Funnily enough I've read how politics comes into this as well, not as in someone needing to watch election coverage to get off but more the other way round. Namely people who call themselves "right wing" claiming that the "Left" is waging a war on sex (considering sex and especially fetishes a form of misogyny) however the self-described left I've encountered are more like, pointing out that some of the relationship dynamics in Classic Romance, Twilight, 50 Shades of Grey and other relationship media often portrays a harmful power dynamic that leads to the oppression of people with vulvas and others who don't fit the normative framework.
I really appreciate that she's making an effort to actually explain and define what she's redefining... but language is a system to convey meaning, and what she understands by these words are no more authoritative than what anyone else understands and implies by similar words. 1- She's basing a lot of her definitions on a baseline of her definition of "normative." Others understand and use "normative" to refer to that which is "normal" i.e. the norm. Things that commonly happen. Which are not limited to the single most stereotypical act. In fact it would be abnormal (even "kinky") if a heterosexual married couple insisted on EXCLUSIVELY having lights-off, no-talking, no-eyecontact, missionary sex strictly for reproduction, engaging in precisely zero foreplay. And thus would not be understood by most to be the definition of "normative." 2- The terms "kink" and "fetish" are certainly not interchangeable, but the definition here is unlikely to be exactly what most people understand when those words were used, or how most people use those words. A more wide-spread disambiguation would be that the term kink is informal and subjective. A fetish is more clinical and objective. A kink is an abnormal aspect of sexuality that a person CONSCIOUSLY/chooses to explore, whereas a fetish is a SUBCONSCIOUS sexual fixation. An important distinction is that a kink is a choice, whereas a fetish is an impulse. Those definitions differ from hers but are both subjectively valid ways to use/understand the words. However, I would disagree with two major points: 4- Her definition of a "fetish" referring to an inanimate object of fixation/worship is a valid, but completely separate term that has nothing to do with sexuality. That's a totem or physical idol with a religious significance. Certainly some idols COULD be sexualized (particularly totems having to do with fertility gods/goddesses), but it's an emblem/totem/symbol. 5- I think the 'problematic' aspect she has with the definition of a fetishistic disorder primarily comes from conflating a "fetish" with a "fetishistic disorder." The two are obviously related, but not interchangeable. A Fetishistic disorder refers to recurrent, intense sexual arousal from use of an inanimate object or from a very specific focus on a nongenital body part (or parts) that causes clinically significant distress or functional impairment in one or more important areas of life. Psychological disorders are only diagnosable as disorders when they cause distress or impedes normal day to day life. That doesn't make all fetishes equal to disorders. A fetish doesn't have to be "negative/harmful/disruptive," but WHEN IT DOES, that makes it a disorder. Just like average people have a fear of or aversion to spiders, and that doesn't make it a disorder. The distress/interferance is what makes it a "disorder." So, if a person thinks it's funny to mess with people, so they start getting into feet. They have a foot kink, not a foot fetish. If they don't know why, but they can't avoid looking at people's feet; They're fixated on their attraction to people's feet, even if they consciously know they're gross and dirty (that's what draws them to feet)... they have a foot "fetish" (whether or not they act upon that fetish or it's necessary for them to finish). If they can't stop themselves from behaving inappropriately in public and it interferes with their relationships or ability to keep a job, they have a fetishistic "disorder." Anyone is free to use language to mean different things, but it's no more other people's obligation to change "how they use that word" than it is your obligation to change "how you use that word." A word is useful if the listener understands the meaning you mean when they hear you use it.
@Hannah Witton Do you know anything about fixation‘s? And if so, can kink‘s also come from them? Or are kink‘s and fixation‘s the same? I‘d be happy and very grateful if you could make a video on that topic.
With fetishes, it doesn't work like that, that you need this speciffic thing to be aroused or to get orgasm. I have a fetish and while arouasal to this fetish is stronger than to other things, i still can be arroused by other stuff and don't need to think about my fetish to get orgasm. In fact, most of people with fetishes don't need them to be arroused or to get orgasm , ask random feet fetishists wether thay can get orgasm without thinking about feet, most of them will answer yes.
So the word fetish doesn't even originally come from the medical community and the medical definition of fetish is somewhat reductive. The word really comes from anthropology where it describes any object which has been invested w/ extrinsic power or value. As an example, in the US we have people take an oath prior to testifying in a courtroom (and in certain other circumstances) and, to make clear the significance of the oath, there is an expectation that the witness will place their hand on a bible (or sometimes another book of significance to the individual, but usually a bible) whilst so swearing. This act of touching the fetish is then understood to underscore the significance and seriousness of the oath. And then the medical community borrowed this term. But it's actually all about magic!!!
Well, if you're a person who has a legitimate fetish, the difference between trying to have fun without it versus with can feel an awful lot like magic! 😄
@@AndaraBledin 100% I think the anthropological definition handily captures the medical and psycho-sexual contexts quite well, all the more so when you really understand in an anthropological sense what magic is and what it looks like in actual practice... our minds are incredibly powerful and they mediate our perception of reality. People will tell you your fetish (or neurosis or whatever) is all in your head and like... yeah dude! My entire life is all in my head! I have never had any experience that was outside of my head! LOL
@@erikjohnson6423 Yeah. People who say "it's all in your head" are failing to understand a basic fundamental fact of sentience. 😀 Like how mental conditions are a subset of physical conditions, not a separate thing.
I've always thought of myself as an asexual with a BDSM fetish. Sexually, BDSM is all there is. It's all there ever was. I don't think I've ever even had the thought of wanting a regular encounter. I've been doing it to myself since I was 12. It's come up in a psychiatric setting before and they talked about getting pass it. I don't view it as something that needs to be gotten passed.
All fetishes are kinks Not all kinks are fetishes Fetishes are to shoes As Kinks are to high heels (not all shoes are high heels, they are a smaller subdivision)
I have heard of fetish in a negative sense people speaking about being ferishused because I'm disabled and trans , my internet tends to be similar and those things tend treated as fetish by rude pepole , but I have not really heard of it in a positive way
Outside of the kink community, you'll rarely hear people speaking of fetishes in a positive light. Whether it's because of the term being co-opted for the negative connotations as you mention (which isn't actually a sexual fetish at all) or because those using the term want to others, shame, and stigmatize those who have actual sexual fetishes. Another term one could use is objectification; the reduction of a person to the status of an object or a thing. I actually prefer this term as it isn't as likely to turn people off of the discussion as fetishization tends to be more shocking as well as tends to stigmatize a larger group of people who don't necessarily engage in that behavior.
@@AndaraBledin The OED (and, indeed, many other dictionaries) lists another definiton of fetish: worship of an inanimate object for its supposed magical powers or because it is considered to be inhabited by a spirit. In Marxist theory, "commodity fetishism" is also referenced (drawing from the voodoo meaning of "fetish"): the detachment of the consumer from the labour that produces a commodity. (There _is_ a video on this platform - Charles Darwin vs Karl Marx by Philosophy Tube - that touches on this, but it's like, more than an hour long.)
Does kink/fetish apply to watching and enjoying specific art? Can art be kinky or fetish? Can it be both? Is watching, say gender bender art, and enjoying it a fetish or kink or both? It's still seems a bit vague 😅
Even with the sensory function explanation, it still doesn't make sense to me why people think feet look hot. Most of the foot fetish stuff I've seen is just targeted towards guys who get turned on by looking at feet, barely any of it has to do with the actual sensory aspect. According to other people in this comment section that study also might not be credible.
As someone who speaks English very well(English is my second language), this video was kind of hard to follow. The language in the video is sometime hard to follow with all the terms and large words.
![Twenty One Pilots - The Line (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XCz7WUotXs8/mqdefault.jpg)
What I learned from this,
Fetishes: normal
Kinks: British Rock band (they’re pretty good, give ‘em a listen)
And to think I came here hoping for a guitar tutorial on playing “You Really Got Me”. jk
Thank’s for the highlight!
God save the village green!
this is gonna sound strange but my mom told me she had a boyfriend before my dad and who used to poo and not wipe finger in the hole and make her sniff and suck it I was like mom EWWW TMI already I was releived she left him and met my dad so gross!🤮
@@VictorMendez-l6u why the fuck did you feel the need to share that? literally no one will laugh at your story, neither will anyone find it interesting, its just completely un-asked for
I hate that people keep bringing up Fifty Shades as if it's representative of anything acceptable. It was a very frustrating read and had little to no consent and looks nothing like the kink we should promote
it hits the female gaze hard. Rich good looking dude, dark triad traits, and he only wants her. but you gotta have conflict or life gets boring. Need the drama.
Filthy Shades
never read fifty shades but non consensual is nasty
It literally tells about a victim woman and a psychopath.
50 shades is an awesome book for me, but for other reasons that probably the author didn't planned to come under analysis.
For example, it's a good example on how to not write a healthy bdsm relationship.
It also is a good example on how people full of money and power take advantage of their wealth in order to get anything they want.
Also, what is happening in 50 shades of grey is mostly non-consentual.
Well, it isn't called 50 shades of r*pe for nothing.
Gosh yeah. Why must the mainstream thing that brings the scene to public attention be such a low quality nonsense, I just can't.
I always remind myself that it probably speaks volumes about how abused society is. As this is like yet another example of "wishing abusive behaviour had 'good outcomes' instead of the bad ones they have in reality". ////orz//// Trauma brains are known to struggle feeling safe with the "unknown" even if it's a "way more healthy unknown"
Despite the fact that 50 shades portrays BDSM mostly incorrectly, it was consensual. The default position is that kind of relationship is consent. That's why there is a safe word.
@@Keti9er a safe word existing doesn't mean it was consensual.
@@Keti9erI really hope you aren't a part of the kink community.
For anyone reading, this is a really inaccurate and dangerous point of view. Anyone agreeing with or preaching this sort of behaviour should be avoided at all costs.
Great explanation! I love the idea that all fetishes are kinks but not all kinks are fetishes. Reminds me of how all ovals are circles but not all circles are ovals.
Isn't it the other way around?🤔
@@JuMixBoox lol yes, all circles are ellipses but not all ellipses are circles
"Oval" isn't a real mathematical shape at all. Ellipses look like "an oval" but they're very precise (and therefore would exclude most "ovals") being the set of points where the sum of the distances between two foci are the same. So, like a circle but you keep track of two distances instead of one. A eclipse is also a circle if its foci are the same point and all circles are elipses.
I belive the more common and simple one is "all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares"
Every poopoo time is a peepee time but not every peepee time is a poopoo time
All thumbs are fingers but not all fingers are thumbs.
From what I’ve heard a fetish is a sexual attraction to a non sexual thing. So basically being sexually attracted to anything other than genitalia. Under this definition ass, and tits would be considered fetishes, and are definitely more popular than feet.
It depends on if the sexuality of the things are to be determined biologically or socially. While biologically boobs are not sexual, there is a social connotation that they are. I don’t think either interpretation is wrong but it’s certainly something to consider in your definition.
That is true but I’d argue that since ass and tits are such popular mainstream fetishes, they’re hardly thought of as such and just seem “normative.” Reminds me of how glasses are an accessibility aid like hearing aids are, but only the latter is really thought of as such since glasses are so normalized
Yeah. That's kinda it. For example, I got a fetish for guys wearing backpacks barechested. Don't know why. I just find it hot. Also, helmeted guys in racing suits
@@Watchmanskeyok but you kinda have a point with the backpack thing ngl
@@elitecarbonninja4429There’s also a “social connotation” that ass is sexual but that’s still considered a fetish 😂
Fetishes often also come from phobias, this may be because the body finds a way to cope with the terror of the phobia by associating it with sexual properties
This is a thought I had too (ok, not phobias in a clinical way, rather fears etc), regarding my own experience. Whilst after the definition in this video not being fetishes, but rather kinks, some (my first kinks I discovered) I connect with some childhood fears and also traumatising images I encountered on the Internet (the latter as a teen).
Woah I had NO clue of this. It actually explains a lot for me personally. I'll ruminate on this
Oh damn.....
honestly, this has been my experience. The things that I repress and push away from my outer identity have become the things I need to get off. It's kind of bizarre and sometimes frustrating.
@@citizenkaneVIIthat sounds a bit like ptsd too though?
I hadn't expected you to include an explanation of paraphilia along side definitions of kinks and fetishes. I was pleasantly surprised. Well done at a very solid and concise summary.
Ah, kinks are the guys that enjoy a little weed from time to time, maybe some magic mush. Fetishes are the guys tweaking out in the back because they HAVE to have a fix NOW.
I can joke about it because I have kinks, fetishes and I am a recovering drug addict.
I hope all goes well in your recovery, having a parent who struggles with substance abuse, I know it can take a lot of effort. Best wishes for you.
good comment. i hate and love that comparison.
as someone with a drug history i hate it, because its true. as someone with a fetish i love it, because its true.
I like your comparison but let’s be real anyone can joke about it
@@Mohicular definitely, thats more also a joke in and of itself
🗿🗿
Non-sexual kink was an essential concept for me to discover as someone with anxiety and sensory issues. I gained an interest in self-tie shibari as a way of essentially making wearable weighted blankets. I like the pressure! But I had to overcome the shame I had for engaging in something people saw as inherently sexual. Still hate that I have to conceal my ties perfectly under my clothing lest people think they're, at best, a titillating fashion statement.
It's a similar idea for me. I don't do it in public but playing into non sexual pet play (wearing collars, asking for head scratches) helps me deal with my anxiety and emotional issues as an autistic girl. It's hard to explain to people that it's not a sexual thing. It helps to be in queer circles that are more understanding of these kinds of needs of mine.
“Just erotic. Nothing kinky. It’s the difference between using a feather and using a chicken.”
Eric - Terry Pratchett
While he's told it, the joke is far older than he was. In the form I first knew it: "Erotic is using a feather. Kinky is using the whole damned bird." 😆
@@AndaraBledin hahaha cool, well, the concepts in TP's discworld have rarely been absolutely original:D
bro who is that? i keep finding old cartoons on youtube about it that kinda remind me of last unicorn or whatever.
@@banquetoftheleviathan1404A British author of satirical fantasy. Really wise guy and a great master of the English language.
ok but what if you plucked the chicken so it was just a featherless biped
The whole childhood tie to fetishes has always interested me. I have a strong leather, PVC, latex fetish and one of my earliest memories are of my mum's knee-high leather boots (this is back in the 70's). Dr Freud would have a field day with that association, I think.
I have a childhood association where i watched a movie and got one, but i feel confused because i wouldn't really call vore a kink but its not ruining my life or damaging anything and not 100% necessary
@@squirrel670 finding nemo whale scene for me lol
@@lachlan_bear2243 lmao I think that was the only one that freaked me out.
I have a "going barefoot" fetish and I wonder if it's from my dad *forcing me* to wear shoes AND socks as a child?
From what I've seen fetishes can also be non-sexual. It sometimes refers to just an immense, unusual level of interest/obsession with something. The way I see it, it's a kink but even stronger. A kink is something you enjoy and sometimes partake in. A fetish is something deeply engrained in you. It's like a kink on crack- whether it's a sexual one or not.
EDIT: To all the people saying that a non sexual kink or fetish is just a hobby or an obsession.. to put it bluntly, I've seen people who like BDSM, or vore, or transformation, or inflation, or feet, or a whole host or other things, who aren't into it sexually. But I think if any of us heard them saying they're into these things, we would call it a kink or a fetish.
Because "hobby" or "obsession" just doesn't quite fit these.
I would hard agree. I was shocked when she said they have to be sexual,especially considering she has spoken with Evie Lupine. Fetishes are commonly associated with sexuality, but are not limited to it.
@@Nichrysalis Yeah, I found that strange too. Even dictionaries don't define fetishes as exclusively sexual things.
she used the word inherently
I would support the definition of “fetish” as an inherently sexual thing, because otherwise it’s just not a very useful word. If a fetish is just an intense/obsessive kink, you could just call it an intense/obsessive kink. If “fetish” refers to a kink that is inherently sexual, then it becomes a useful word for categorization and the conversation surrounding kinks.
This is reminding me of "plurophilia" which just means liking rain, despite the suffix "philia" being inherently sexual
Me, an asexual:
***I N T E R E S T I N G***
I question if I am or not as so rare to find anyone I'm attracted to in the non asexual way
@@mlee6050Asexuality is also a spectrum! Not all ace people are completely incapable of sexual attraction, there are so many different kinds of people with all sorts of different experiences. Plus, being asexual is very different from being aromantic. Some people can fully esperience romantic attraction but no sexual attraction, and some people are the other way around, or a mix of both under very specific circumstances.
@@TheDanibits all the stuff above LGBT I fail to learn and remember well enough sadly
Humans can’t be Asexual an Asexual creature is a creature that doesn’t need a mate to reproduce 🤓
Btw I probably should has specified but this is just a joke lol I know what that kind of asexual means many words have multiple meanings
@@mlee6050thats ok, you’re doing your best, also now you know about a cool podcast that talks about asexuality so that’s nice, right? :)
Thanks for the disclaimer that sexual imprinting is not the same as in twilight hahaha very important info to know
😂😂😂
I'm wondering now if twilight started that notion, if it goes back even further.
lol that was the only way my ex could understand oxytocin
My partner when we first got together about 7 years ago admitted that he was into tying up (doesn't matter who, me or himself), maybe because he liked the art form of kinbaku. I admit visually it's pleasing to the eyes, but in practicality, it does not appeal to me in any way. In fantasies I think I'd like to be dominated, but in practicality, I found I like to be in control of what happens to me at any point in time (meaning I like to be able to choose at any point where I move and what I touch), and my partner has admitted that also in practicality while it was nice to look at an bondage it wasn't exactly comfortable for him. So we gave up on our so-called "fetishes" for what we actually do together since in reality they didn't pleasure us. Have we become a bit vanilla in our sexual lives, maybe, but we aren't lacking in affection and sexual tension just because we've realized that the things we used to view as our "fetishes" don't really work for us in the real life.
I feel you on the bondage thing.
I've got a bit of background so being restrained, while quite exciting in theory, leads to panic attacks in reality, one of the least sexy things you can have going on in the bedroom. >_
Oh so is not the same thing as tying yourself to the bed...
Interesting tidbit about the explanation for foot fetishes: the data that explanation came from is actually pretty old and was collected from a select few individuals while they were undergoing open brain surgery.
The different parts of the patients/subjects somatosensory cortices (that part of their brains where touch is mapped) were selectively stimulated and the participants where then asked in which bodypart they felt a corresponding sensation.
Now to the tricky part - since genitals still are, and were even more so back then, a pretty private topic, most of the participants didn't even report any sensation in their genitals, so the researchers didn't have a lot of data points for pinpointing them.
Now, I learned this a few years ago in my intro to neuroscience course at university, so I don't quite remember if it was ever officially comfirmed, but there's a decent likelihood the researchers just put the genitals at the end of the map because of this missing data/misrepresentation on part of the participants.
So they most likely aren't really represented next to the feet - but that map is still printed in many textbooks even, and I've heard other professors refer to it as if it was true, but personally I found this explanation to be much more likely
The data was actually from the 50s, so nearly 70 years old at this point, and to my knowledge had never been reproduced. The theory itself has actually been debunked at this point. A 2014 study, for example, found that foot fetishes (kinks) were actually not at all that common in the first place, and that if there was a connection, it wasn't connected to 'fuzzy' brain boundaries.
The fetish, btw, was for items associated with feet, and not with feet themselves. So, shoes, stockings, etc.
There is another point speaking against it. It's mostly men having a foot fetish, but not about their own feet, but about womens feet who are less likely to have a foot fetish. So it's now about it to have a sexual feeling.
Yeah that sounded like some BS, I'm trying to mentally associate feet with genitalia and it just isn't anywhere close. Feet are disgusting.
This is a really great video. My dad's entire career while I was age 7-20 was around leather fetishes. He made leather related soft porn. It was an interesting time being a teen surrounded by the sex industry, but it definitely taught me a lot of really important and really positive lessons!
same but it also made bdsm inherently cringe to me now cuz it reminds me of people trying too hard to be cool.
@@banquetoftheleviathan1404 that's sparked a memory. All of the models were so lovely but there was one who only ever came to the studio once. I was on the shoot learning about lighting and she said "do you want smiley, or sexy?" Then she did the creepiest weirdest face I've ever seen in my life 😂 the photographer went for smiley!
i kind of wish i got more information about having a fetish as a kid. i’ve had one since i was about 4-5 years old, no idea how it spawned but it hasn’t gone away. i quickly picked up on the fact that i probably shouldn’t share it with others so i’ve kept it secret all these years. the most validating thing i’ve ever been told about sexuality was in middle school when i was told it’s perfectly normal and ok to masturbate in private, i had been doing it prior but it was a relief to find out it wasn’t something “bad” or whatever.
If it's not an insensitive question or too private, how did you discover a fetish as a 4-5 year old?
@@hellovoid2104 had no idea it was a fetish at the time or what i was feeling was arousal, i just knew that whenever i encountered it i would feel heat pooling “down there” and i would get flustered and feel awkward and have to deal with it somehow. didn’t connect the dots on it being sexual until middle school when i heard arousal being described in health class.
@@mavohq I see, thank you for sharing!
At that age you statistically couldn’t have had sexual attractions, you could be an outlier by a LONG mile but you shouldn’t get those feeling until 9 at the very earliest, as to my professional knowledge 4 would be unheard of and would need to be investigated
Also I cannot begin to explain how bad of an idea teaching children of the age of 4 about fetishes would be
I am 64 and have been interacting with intersecting alternative communities for more than 40 years. I have found the evolving lexicon of terms and phrases to be specious; and, also that it's preferable to ask someone what they mean rather than assume everyone means the same thing.
Re: there being a kink for *everything,* I heard the same about pornography. Fun game is to think of anything and google “kink” with that word. I imagine that would be less traumtizing than adding the word “porn” to your random word search. I’ve never done the latter but have heard that people can be terrified by what they see
I'd say as a sex therapist that usually the shame and stigma around someone's fetish is due to the society they're in (as you brilliantly say) and the silencing/isolation they feel in not being able to share their authenticity. So this video is great as it'll hopefully help someone open up to another and feel seen!♡
I'm really curious, May in ask you what is the job of sex therapist??
For me it's not the shame but rather their initial reaction and how they deal with it afterwards. For example l wouldn't wanna tell someone, and they head back home and think about it as they drive and have an accident. I'd feel guilty.
So, hey, that thing about the sensory proximity in the brain between feet & sexual organs has been entirely debunked. It's just not true. In fact, a 2014 study found that foot kinks are actually not all that common at all, and that people would be more likely to have a fetish for things associated with feet than with feet themselves.
It's far more likely that the feet are probably one of the most sensitive parts of the body after the genitals and are also the next most inaccessible in most situations. Also, feet touch the ground, so there's a sense of transgression in being interested in feet as well.
Never underestimate the appeal of being transgressive!
transgression?
@@scribblecloud Things that violate (or are perceived to violate) social norms - think the "forbidden fruit" concept. Sadism/masochism, for instance, could be argued to be slightly transgressive, because the deliberate infliction of pain violates social norms. One theory as to why the majority type of pornography consumed in majority-Republican states in the US involves transgender individuals is that theory of transgression - it's perceived to be a violation of local social norms, which gives it an allure of being "forbidden".
It's worth pointing out that social norms are not the same as laws. They may coincide (for instance, rape is both illegal and considered socially unacceptable) but while it's perfectly legal to engage in, for example, urolagnia, most people would consider you at least a little strange if you admitted to getting off on the idea of being peed on.
I love learning about all of this stuff as a pretty 'vanilla' but very open and positive individual.
Reminds me of the joke: What's the difference between erotic and kinky?
Erotic is when you use a feather, kinky is when you use the whole chicken.
So cat ears v a cat that stands on 2 legs xP 😂
I vaguely knew what the differences were but this is great. Now we have a video to link to when needed!
Great video! The real difference between kinks and fetishes is quite often misunderstood, so thanks for this! We really want to help the Italian community to better understand the world of
K!nk and BD5M and the way it is perceived.
This was actually really educating even from a perspective of a person who is somehow involved in the local kink community
The ultimate masochist says, "Whip me, Master! I need to be whipped!" The ultimate Sadist replies, "No!"
THIS IS HILARIOUS OH MY GOD
That’s a good one 😂
Interesting subject, on many levels. For years I did bondage photography, the why I did this was easy..... I liked to put women in bondage, and having a consensual subject was of course required. I roamed around in photography clubs where women interested in modeling were group members. While most women were interested in mainstream modeling, I was amzed that many were willing to give " damsel in distress" LOL, sounded better than using the word bondage a try. I found by chatting, and getting to know them they would open up how they had a fantasy of being bound and even gaged, but never knew how to share the desire with others. The ideal of "I'm just doing a modeling gig" open a safe door to explore the concept. I can say these willing bondage subjects seem to have a normal life, not damaged goods as some would think of them, but healthy mentally, normal in every other way, but had a taboo desire. Speaking for myself, I have a long happy marriage, grown children that are successful, yet, I enjoy this "kink" I guess my point for anyone who is dealing with a fetish, or kink issue, in itself does not make you a bad person, misuse of the desire can lead to trouble.
Coooool! :D
I'm demi/bi and only recently got together with my first partner. They're awesome, going at my pace etc. All good vibes and has been super easy to discuss kinks, primarily BDSM with them.
For me there's a borderline between it being a sensual connecting thing and a sexual thing which I'm still discovering. It's new and unusual for me but also wonderful and I'm looking forward to exploring it all. 😊
My issue is always other people's reaction to it all. Primarily "If you're Demi/Inexperienced, how do you know you like it? I thought you didn't like sex? Etc.." They seem to have a perception that I'm entirely innocent and don't know my own preferences. Also they're worried that he's taking advantage of me. Like we're not both contesting adults with an ability to communicate or we're going too fast. I know it's coming from a place of concern but also feels a bit condescending. 🤷♀️
Anyone any thoughts?
I get what u mean. I'm asexual/demiromantic and into bdsm. It's the only thing that makes me feel anything remotely sexual at all. I am not physically attracted to other people but I am attracted to bdsm dynamics and the actions that can go along with it if that makes sense.
It has been hard to accept, but I'm working on it. I despise being that "complicated" and so far I haven't found a partner I'm compatible with yet.
But yep, most ppl don't take me seriously due to my sexuality. It's mostly caused by the stigma surrounding the asexuality spectrum. Ppl tend to think we are beings that are repulsed by anything sex related/terrified of it even ( which can be the case for some ppl since it's a spectrum and it's totally fine ). They tend to think being ace means that you're some type of alien or smth it's a very frustrating and dehumanising experience.
I always feel like ppl are condescending towards me in that case too, so you're not the only one.
Anyways: I think you and your partner know each other best. I know it's hard but you have to quit listening what other ppl try to push on you. Your sexuality is yours to explore and if u have a partner to do that with that's something wonderful. Those ppl who talk shit about you guys are simply terribly uneducated on the asexual spectrum and are talking out of their ass.
You are doing nothing wrong, keep exploring yourself and your desires, whatever they might be - as long as you're doing it safely ofc.
Idk if my comment helps ( prob not ) but what I'm trying to say is: you're not alone, you're not broken and you're loved. Do what feels right for YOU.
That I find the entire thing w BDSM sounds at least abusive and I can't belive it's becoming socialy acceptable for this to exist and that it scares me, mostls
I want to be. Loved. Be interested in. Be found as fascinating und curious. And to find the idea of hurting me abhorrent in a sense. Like terrible and shocking and most defiantly the opposite of desirable. I find it terrifing that that is normal
@@catsaresocute650 (not judging here, just explaining) It certainly appears that way from an outside perspective, but do keep in mind that this is all done with explicit consent and for the purpose of enjoyment for all parties involved. As someone with much softer fetishes/kinks, I personally don't get the appeal of things like whipping or insults, but I don't judge others for it.
Think of it this way: You know how some people will excuse assault by claiming that the victim was "asking for it" when they did not, in fact, say "hey, please do this to me"? Well, with BDSM, everyone involved is _quite literally asking for it._
If someone does it to you without you wanting it, THAT is abuse.
@@catbatrat1760 No. If someone wants to be hurt then that's self-harm, a psychological problem that they should recive help for. If someone wants to hurt others they are dangerus and should definitivly not be encuraged to do it. That stuff shouldn't be accepted it should be maybe treated like drug addicts are. Wrong, yes some people do it and probably crimialising the more hamless things isn't usefull for the affected people, but there should be rehab options for anyone who wants to go out and social workers to help them out
Hannah! Don't forget to promote your Ko-Fi and add it to the description section so that people who can't commit monthly can still support you occasionally!
BDSM = Bible Discussion Study Meeting
*remembers that pale character who whips themselves in Da Vinci Code* makes sense.
love the boob pencil holder
and thank you for teaching me the difference between fetish and kink, a lot of people often use them interchangeably which makes it all confusing
This was very educational for me! My perception of sex is very warped as a trans person with crippling dysphoria, the way you phrased everything and it explained it in understandable terms, using reassurance to not shame anyone for their own personal interests weather they are open about it or private about it. You seem like such an understanding human and thank you for clearing this up for me!:)
I agree dysphoria fucks so much with my sexuality, I hope it'll get better for both of us as soon as possible :)
@@eljay_sys hoping for the best for you!! We deserve to have comfort with ourselves, we’ll get there eventually. Much love :)💙💙
Thank you for clarifying some things to me about my own kinks and fetishes. A lot of what you said makes perfect sense to me.
I like the way you’ve organized your books on the shelf :)
Thank you, very informative. This is a really sensitive topic so i am glad you took the time to dive in and explane everything objectively!
I like to organize kinks in a “tesseract” based on how statistically common they are, how accepted they are in society (including the media), how much risk is involved, and how accessible it is to participate in them in real life.
I've always found the definition of fetish as "necessary for pleasure, arousal and/or orgasm" to be strange and off-base. This would suggest that if someone has a foot fetish, then feet are REQUIRED for them to have sexual satisfaction, and that just doesn't typically seem to be the case. Or, in other words, this definition is out of touch with how most people understand fetishes.
Based on my own observation of kink and fetish communities, I would propose pruning the definitions of kink and fetish down to just "not necessarily sexual" and "inherently sexual," and abandon the "preference" and "necessary" language.
Or maybe even that is overthinking it at this point. For most people, the words are basically interchangeable now, and maybe that's just the inevitable result of how clunky and confusing their supposed distinctions are.
This does kinda follow my thoughts and ideas of what the differences are. How I dumbed it down was: fetishes are things while kinks are acts.
And also, I do believe the level/type of attraction is varries from person to person. For one person's fetish, feet (as an example) is just something nice to look at. Like seeing just a beautiful person walking past you. To another, it is actually essential to their sexual life.
Thankfully I am more on the "nice to look at" side of the spectrum for my midriff fetish as it's not necessary for my sexual pleasures. Because if I was on the other side summer would've been hell for me.
Hot damn I was a kinky child (I only now realized this, when you said that kink is not inherently sexual)
Don't worry, I have those thoughts too when I was like 6
I still have no idea how tf I came up with those back then
Wait - how?
same it's so fucking funny to look back on😭😭 so many of my childhood memories are of me having the same fetish i have now it's really fun to occasionally remember something and be like "OH, i liked that thing so much because i was *into* it, gotcha"
Not me having a teacher kink since I was in elementary school 😅😂 (had a huuuuge crush on an art teacher at five years old and a couple of others regarding teaching aids around fifth/sixth grade). Fast forward to me at 30 now and trying to convince my hubby to do more roleplays. Also seeing art of men in dress shirts and ties wearing glasses with a faint stubble and I get so worked up 😅 🥵
So basically I have a women fetish, because that’s the only thing that needs to be present for me to achieve sexual gratification. Everything else is just a kink, since they don’t have to always be present. Thank you for explaining!
Lol
Um noooo the first would be sexual orientation.
@@jclyntoledo r/woooosh
Interesting that I recently watched a video by Evie Lupine where they discussed the difference between kinks and BDSM, and how different people see them differently.
What a breath of fresh air you are! At last, an intelligent, balanced and healthy discussion about the very definition of terminology that gets so abused by sensationalized press and people. There are so many travesties of justice going on related to the total and utter ignorance of our sexuality because bigots in our institutions have the power to destroy those who may not conform to their values but who are no risk to anyone.
Thanks, I totally agree with you! It’s really refreshing to have these open and balanced discussions without the usual sensationalism. It’s frustrating how much misunderstanding and stigma still surrounds different aspects of sexuality, often fueled by people in power who don't get it or just want to enforce their own narrow views. Conversations like these are important for breaking down those barriers and creating a more informed and accepting space for everyone.
Moderate detail: Current, paraphilias have been split into paraphilias and paraphilic disroders. The ones with unconsenting subject or putting oneself at great risk go into the paraphilic disorder.
For anything to be considered a paraphilia, nowadays, it must be with something that is not a consenting, human, alive and whole (aka not a body part),and the person must feel more attraction to it than to any non-paraphilic subject
The section on paraphilias is incorrect. Firstly, in DSM-5 (2013), paraphilias have been made distinct from paraphilic disorders, which is to say that paraphilias have been depathologised in the DSM (and in the latest edition of the ICD too). A paraphilia is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a paraphilic disorder. Hence paedophilia (for example) is not a mental disorder, but one cannot have 'paedophilic disorder' without also having paedophilia. Secondly, the criteria for a paraphilic disorder are a _or_ b rather than a _and_ b, where a equals experiencing distress and b equals having acted on the paraphilia. These criteria have attracted criticism, and rightly so. The first should be classified as anxiety and/or depression; the second is a legal matter.
It's good that you mention homosexuality's previously pathological status, because there's a clear parallel between the treatment of paraphilias in DSM-5 and the two-step depathologisation of homosexuality, which was first replaced with 'egodystonic homosexuality' before being removed altogether. Egodystonic homosexuality meant homosexuality plus distress at being homosexual. No doubt the paraphilic disorders will be removed altogether in future.
Out of all the shit that was said in this video I’m pretty sure I started crying when you brought up the light reflector.. I don’t know if it was the ADHD in me but that shit hit home hard 😂
The definition you gave for kink is the definition of a paraphilic condition, and the definition you gave for paraphilia is actually the definition for paraphilic disorders
The best ive heard it described is "a kink is a feather. A fetish is the whole chicken"
This video helped me learn that I have a lot of kinks but only one fetish (neck stuff). Very informative, thank you for sharing this education!
1:39 I think you should drop the "within a marriage" part of the definition. Instead, I would have it be "between two consenting adults or teens of similar age".
Kinks are optional for intercourse, whilst fetishes are mandatory for intercourse. It’s as simple as that.
Excellent presentation and explanations. I grew up in the 1970's when the word "kinky" was de riguer and became ubiquitous. I got the impression that folks were using it to generally describe anything that they did NOT understand. For example:
Q: "What do you think of Calculus?"
A: "Kinky!"
Props for the definition of kink(s).
The definition of fetishes might be correct in the english speaking community but is misused coming from its origin and is thus used different in other germanian languages.
The necessity of the fetish is thus not part of e.g. the german use of the word fetish. Actually, the necessity is often described as the criteria making a fetish compulsory and defining it as a kind of mental disorder. In most non-english communities a fetish is thus seen as optional not as necessary. And same thing with the sexual orientation of a fetish: in general a fetish describes the thing that is being fetishized, i.e. worshiped (the term comes from a description of foreign religions and their fetishes, i.e. the things they worship). It does technically not matter for what the thing or body part is fetishized. So one should speak about sexual fetishes and mental disorders concerning certain sexual fetishes in this discussion.
The main difference between fetish and kind is thus, that a fetish is describing an fixation to a certain object whilst a kind describes whatever unnormative behaviour. The concept are thus partly contained in another, but in general independent from one another!
This vid is amazing! I've never seen such straight forward and not-made-even-a-little-weird sex ed!
I would like to recommend to you the channel of well known writer and spanking fetishist Jillian Keenan, who explains the idea of wether or not a (spanking) fetish is a sexual orientation.
Oooh interesting thanks!
I found this Psychology Today article, of 2016, titled `` No, You Cannot Eradicate A Fetish. `` and it's at least akin to sexual orientation, at least in terms that you can't eradicate/get rid of your fetishes. The latest rendition of the DSM-5 depathologized paraphilia which the article writer, a clinical sexologist, used synonymously with fetish.
I don't know where 'Sweat' sits on the kink spectrum but it me. Among other things.
It's not particularly uncommon.
I mean, you can engage 4 of the 5 senses with it. And when one of those is scent, it can be a pretty powerful attractant.
How interesting! Never knew those words weren't "just" synonyms!
Anyone else start to think fetish wasn’t a real word after hearing it so much 🤣
This explanation made me love the song "Fetish" (by Joan Jett) so much more...
So where would "blue is the most attractive colour" fall?
A favorite colour? Unless you *really* like the colour.
For me a dark tone magenta is really sexy. Funnily enough, the hex code for it is #B00B69.
Lame
I think this narrative is outdated personally, the idea of paraphilia comes from a time the DSM was made in hiegenist pre-nazi germany in order to stigmatize, and every edition since then has been liberalizing it to a point where DSM-5 is pretty great, but still, the perspective has remnants of wanting to do arbitrary separation.
A kink is something you like outside of the sexual norm, if this kink is unconsensual, then it's unconsensual, if it becomes too problematic in your life, it's either addiction or your own conservatism that clashes with it, or your only way to express a non-normative behavior.
Like everything that exists, how much you like a kink is a spectrum.
To me there's no such thing as a fetish that's not a kink, no one use uses fetish as in psychiatry, like, it's a "foot kink" that's the most prevalent in the world technically. Same as ADHD or autism for exemple, we're supposed to consider ourselves neurodivergent only if our neurodivergence impairs our everyday life, lie if the amount of executive function we can bear day to day is okay with our functionning etc... there's a problem in the definition itself, it's because the psychiatrist institution was made to discriminate, incarcerate and genocide historically, then left-wing paternalistic conceptions took over past WW2 and the framework evolved towards a constructivist lecture: "you only have a condition if you contextually suffer from it", but it's somehow also embedded in our brains by default and molded by our environment by design.
Practically no one says "I don't have ADHD because I'm fine and priviledged" and no one says "I don't have a foot fetish because I'm vanilla althrough I feet like crazy too".
There's also freudian bullshit in the area to make things more uselessly complicated, most gen X and boomers only had access to psychoanalytic conceptions because they were still less reactionary that oldschool DSM 3 and 4, and were linked to the sexual revolution era, there's an overlap between the old conception of "aristo-punk BDSM", old psychatric terms and pre-queerness, that was the mood of the counter-culture back then; queers have made a complexte leap from this, kinksters are inbetween... more gatekeeping high-protocol boomers, less science and political theory for the youth to know what is outdated (it took me about a decade of intensive specific interests about kinks, if not a lifetime since teenagehood to reach these conclusions and make links with the overall neuroqueer related topics.)
As an asexual person this video was fascinating in a scientific way
Be so fr
@i_do_things620 what do you mean? Sorry if I offended you, I just mean that although I'm not personally interested in kinks and fetishes, it was interesting to learn more about it
@@Will_Tree u didn’t I’m ace too :) (and same i was just agreeing sorry if I made you think that)
what would you call something that you find sexually attractive but not necessary for arousal or orgasm? because I personally would still call it a fetish
I think that would mean that being attracted to someone's smile, sense of humour, intellect, ambition or confidence could be considered a fetish.
I think when a man gets more attracted to his partner when she wears high heels that is a kink. Him always insisting that she keeps them on for sex is a fetish.
I'd call it a kink
well at least according to what she outlined in this video, it would fall under the definition of a kink. or perhaps something else, but not as fetish as a fetish is defined as being necessary or arousal and/or orgasm.
I was wondering this, too.
Kink is using a feather, fetish is using the whole bird
This is a like “ rectangles are squares but squares are not rectangles “
Non-sexual kink is so important to talk about. There's so much more of it than people talk about.
as someone who has a functioning libido but has never had sex and, to be honest, not even that interested to have it any time soon, i happen to have... some very interesting fetishes. funny how sexuality works.
Your screen name means "leave me alone", doesn't it?
I am a foot guy. And i dont think that brain theory is correct in all cases. If i understand it properly the crossover thing works if someone is playing with or touching your' feet and you' will get aroused, that theory makes sense. But me touching others or doing things with feet that cant be the same thing because i am not feeling anything on my feet obviously.
Yeah, exactly.
@@MrFusselig what? The theory makes sense if you receive not give foot action. I believe its formed on sensory choices as a child
@@RossiB172 Yes, but this is not the common foot fetish. The common foot fetish is guys liking girls feet. Not guys liking being handled their own feet or girls being handled their own feet.
@@MrFusselig I know but with the theory being described I don't think it makes sense of the common one
Tysm, this was so interesting and informative. I used to hate fetishes, (guys with foot fetishes are so creepy and other reasons), but now not really
isn't it a bit problematic to tag anything that is not hetero cis sex as 'kinky'?
Why would it be problematic?
@@leobruch3697 well, it directly links queerness with sex and promiscuity, which is already a thing people do. people don't ask cis people "what's between your legs?", unless they have mistaken them for trans. old transphobic men will overtly sexualize trans people - the trans categories in p0rn sites are among the most visited, even though the world's still incredibly transphobic. queer sex should be seen as 'normal' as cis sex.
it's been 10 months since watched this video so i don't really remember what they said in it that prompted me to post that comment.
I've been wanting an explanation thank you
every time someone talks about the difference between kinks and festishes i get confused. cause im pretty sure i have a fetish, but ive had orgasms and been aroused without it plenty of times as well? its just a faster way to 'get there' ? And then people that i talk to about it are like: well its not a fetis then!....and im like... no it definitly is. a very specific trigger that never fails to arouse no matter if its an unsexy context?.... but sure.. i guess youre the expert about my preferences barbara..
I feel like the colloquial usage of the term "fetish" is a bit looser than the medical definition. I would definitely say I've got fetishes, but I'm still capable of getting off without them, but I don't know if there's a medical term for a non-normative sexual desire that you can still enjoy sex without?
I accidentally answered your question lol, indeed this delimitation doesn't make sense:
"I think this narrative is outdated personally, the idea of paraphilia comes from a time the DSM was made in hiegenist pre-nazi germany in order to stigmatize, and every edition since then has been liberalizing it to a point where DSM-5 is pretty great, but still, the perspective has remnants of wanting to do arbitrary separation.
A kink is something you like outside of the sexual norm, if this kink is unconsensual, then it's unconsensual, if it becomes too problematic in your life, it's either addiction or your own conservatism that clashes with it, or your only way to express a non-normative behavior.
Like everything that exists, how much you like a kink is a spectrum.
To me there's no such thing as a fetish that's not a kink, no one use uses fetish as in psychiatry, like, it's a "foot kink" that's the most prevalent in the world technically. Same as ADHD or autism for exemple, we're supposed to consider ourselves neurodivergent only if our neurodivergence impairs our everyday life, lie if the amount of executive function we can bear day to day is okay with our functionning etc... there's a problem in the definition itself, it's because the psychiatrist institution was made to discriminate, incarcerate and genocide historically, then left-wing paternalistic conceptions took over past WW2 and the framework evolved towards a constructivist lecture: "you only have a condition if you contextually suffer from it", but it's somehow also embedded in our brains by default and molded by our environment by design.
Practically no one says "I don't have ADHD because I'm fine and priviledged" and no one says "I don't have a foot fetish because I'm vanilla althrough I feet like crazy too"."
Yeah same, I started calling my fetish a kink because I realized people think of “fetish” as synonymous with “sexually dysfunctional.” People seem to have this idea that fetishes 1) are something deeply ingrained that you’ve had your whole life, and 2) are the only thing you can get off to. But what that leaves out is that many people experience the first half of that but not the second half. In the community for the kink/fet I have, almost everyone has had that experience. It’s crazy to me that we don’t have a language that actually reflects this
I agree. I absolutely have some very concrete fetishes, but I just can't get on board with the part of the definition that says they are a hard requirement for arousal / climax.
i mean that's what a kink is, that's the difference between a kink and a fetish. they're not wrong
Granted I've never seen Twilight so I don't know the reference but at least I know the IRL version of Sexual Imprinting is not the same.
Although it is interesting how narrow normative is, I assume neurotypical is also a requirement to be normative.
Funnily enough I've read how politics comes into this as well, not as in someone needing to watch election coverage to get off but more the other way round.
Namely people who call themselves "right wing" claiming that the "Left" is waging a war on sex (considering sex and especially fetishes a form of misogyny) however the self-described left I've encountered are more like, pointing out that some of the relationship dynamics in Classic Romance, Twilight, 50 Shades of Grey and other relationship media often portrays a harmful power dynamic that leads to the oppression of people with vulvas and others who don't fit the normative framework.
I really appreciate that she's making an effort to actually explain and define what she's redefining... but language is a system to convey meaning, and what she understands by these words are no more authoritative than what anyone else understands and implies by similar words.
1- She's basing a lot of her definitions on a baseline of her definition of "normative." Others understand and use "normative" to refer to that which is "normal" i.e. the norm. Things that commonly happen. Which are not limited to the single most stereotypical act. In fact it would be abnormal (even "kinky") if a heterosexual married couple insisted on EXCLUSIVELY having lights-off, no-talking, no-eyecontact, missionary sex strictly for reproduction, engaging in precisely zero foreplay. And thus would not be understood by most to be the definition of "normative."
2- The terms "kink" and "fetish" are certainly not interchangeable, but the definition here is unlikely to be exactly what most people understand when those words were used, or how most people use those words. A more wide-spread disambiguation would be that the term kink is informal and subjective. A fetish is more clinical and objective. A kink is an abnormal aspect of sexuality that a person CONSCIOUSLY/chooses to explore, whereas a fetish is a SUBCONSCIOUS sexual fixation. An important distinction is that a kink is a choice, whereas a fetish is an impulse.
Those definitions differ from hers but are both subjectively valid ways to use/understand the words. However, I would disagree with two major points:
4- Her definition of a "fetish" referring to an inanimate object of fixation/worship is a valid, but completely separate term that has nothing to do with sexuality. That's a totem or physical idol with a religious significance. Certainly some idols COULD be sexualized (particularly totems having to do with fertility gods/goddesses), but it's an emblem/totem/symbol.
5- I think the 'problematic' aspect she has with the definition of a fetishistic disorder primarily comes from conflating a "fetish" with a "fetishistic disorder." The two are obviously related, but not interchangeable. A Fetishistic disorder refers to recurrent, intense sexual arousal from use of an inanimate object or from a very specific focus on a nongenital body part (or parts) that causes clinically significant distress or functional impairment in one or more important areas of life. Psychological disorders are only diagnosable as disorders when they cause distress or impedes normal day to day life. That doesn't make all fetishes equal to disorders. A fetish doesn't have to be "negative/harmful/disruptive," but WHEN IT DOES, that makes it a disorder. Just like average people have a fear of or aversion to spiders, and that doesn't make it a disorder. The distress/interferance is what makes it a "disorder."
So, if a person thinks it's funny to mess with people, so they start getting into feet. They have a foot kink, not a foot fetish. If they don't know why, but they can't avoid looking at people's feet; They're fixated on their attraction to people's feet, even if they consciously know they're gross and dirty (that's what draws them to feet)... they have a foot "fetish" (whether or not they act upon that fetish or it's necessary for them to finish). If they can't stop themselves from behaving inappropriately in public and it interferes with their relationships or ability to keep a job, they have a fetishistic "disorder."
Anyone is free to use language to mean different things, but it's no more other people's obligation to change "how they use that word" than it is your obligation to change "how you use that word." A word is useful if the listener understands the meaning you mean when they hear you use it.
Im confused what’s the difference between an uncommon hobby and a kink?
@Hannah Witton Do you know anything about fixation‘s? And if so, can kink‘s also come from them? Or are kink‘s and fixation‘s the same? I‘d be happy and very grateful if you could make a video on that topic.
With fetishes, it doesn't work like that, that you need this speciffic thing to be aroused or to get orgasm. I have a fetish and while arouasal to this fetish is stronger than to other things, i still can be arroused by other stuff and don't need to think about my fetish to get orgasm. In fact, most of people with fetishes don't need them to be arroused or to get orgasm , ask random feet fetishists wether thay can get orgasm without thinking about feet, most of them will answer yes.
Huh, nice to know. Most of what I considered to be fetishes are now squarely in te kink-drawer instead :)
Thank you for this. I’m trying learn more about the culture to be a better pro Dom. ❤
Interesting to me is the fact that some of this conversations can't be done in italian bcos we lack language for that
Avid kinkster mainly doing rope bondage and impact play over here. Most of the time it's non-sexual for me.
6:56 "And that to me just shows like how diverse and unique (mainly male) human sexuality is"
Oh and l like your pen/ pencil holder
Keep up the great videos
3:27 Just now saw the boob pencil holder. Why didn't I immediately spot it? I'm a totally straight man, boobs are important to me.
When's the economic philosophical explanation of Commodity Fetishism video coming? ;)
So the word fetish doesn't even originally come from the medical community and the medical definition of fetish is somewhat reductive. The word really comes from anthropology where it describes any object which has been invested w/ extrinsic power or value. As an example, in the US we have people take an oath prior to testifying in a courtroom (and in certain other circumstances) and, to make clear the significance of the oath, there is an expectation that the witness will place their hand on a bible (or sometimes another book of significance to the individual, but usually a bible) whilst so swearing. This act of touching the fetish is then understood to underscore the significance and seriousness of the oath. And then the medical community borrowed this term. But it's actually all about magic!!!
Well, if you're a person who has a legitimate fetish, the difference between trying to have fun without it versus with can feel an awful lot like magic! 😄
@@AndaraBledin 100% I think the anthropological definition handily captures the medical and psycho-sexual contexts quite well, all the more so when you really understand in an anthropological sense what magic is and what it looks like in actual practice... our minds are incredibly powerful and they mediate our perception of reality. People will tell you your fetish (or neurosis or whatever) is all in your head and like... yeah dude! My entire life is all in my head! I have never had any experience that was outside of my head! LOL
@@erikjohnson6423 Yeah. People who say "it's all in your head" are failing to understand a basic fundamental fact of sentience. 😀
Like how mental conditions are a subset of physical conditions, not a separate thing.
Me watching this video and five minutes in I noticed the pencil holder in the upper left hand corner.
I've always thought of myself as an asexual with a BDSM fetish. Sexually, BDSM is all there is. It's all there ever was. I don't think I've ever even had the thought of wanting a regular encounter. I've been doing it to myself since I was 12. It's come up in a psychiatric setting before and they talked about getting pass it. I don't view it as something that needs to be gotten passed.
😮
Wow. Informative or what! I think my brain just exploded.
All fetishes are kinks
Not all kinks are fetishes
Fetishes are to shoes
As
Kinks are to high heels (not all shoes are high heels, they are a smaller subdivision)
I have heard of fetish in a negative sense people speaking about being ferishused because I'm disabled and trans , my internet tends to be similar and those things tend treated as fetish by rude pepole , but I have not really heard of it in a positive way
Outside of the kink community, you'll rarely hear people speaking of fetishes in a positive light.
Whether it's because of the term being co-opted for the negative connotations as you mention (which isn't actually a sexual fetish at all) or because those using the term want to others, shame, and stigmatize those who have actual sexual fetishes.
Another term one could use is objectification; the reduction of a person to the status of an object or a thing. I actually prefer this term as it isn't as likely to turn people off of the discussion as fetishization tends to be more shocking as well as tends to stigmatize a larger group of people who don't necessarily engage in that behavior.
@@AndaraBledin The OED (and, indeed, many other dictionaries) lists another definiton of fetish: worship of an inanimate object for its supposed magical powers or because it is considered to be inhabited by a spirit.
In Marxist theory, "commodity fetishism" is also referenced (drawing from the voodoo meaning of "fetish"): the detachment of the consumer from the labour that produces a commodity.
(There _is_ a video on this platform - Charles Darwin vs Karl Marx by Philosophy Tube - that touches on this, but it's like, more than an hour long.)
Does kink/fetish apply to watching and enjoying specific art? Can art be kinky or fetish? Can it be both? Is watching, say gender bender art, and enjoying it a fetish or kink or both?
It's still seems a bit vague 😅
If u are sexualy attracted to said art. Than yes 😂
Anything can be a kink or a fetish. Sexual or otherwise. If you have an odd obsession with gender bending art it probably qualifies.
Fetish art does exist soo
Even with the sensory function explanation, it still doesn't make sense to me why people think feet look hot. Most of the foot fetish stuff I've seen is just targeted towards guys who get turned on by looking at feet, barely any of it has to do with the actual sensory aspect. According to other people in this comment section that study also might not be credible.
As someone who speaks English very well(English is my second language), this video was kind of hard to follow. The language in the video is sometime hard to follow with all the terms and large words.
Feel you, I have a big exam tomorrow and this was a little to complicated for the brain capacity I can spend on it atm 😅
I'm a native speaker of English, and that she talking so fast doesn't help
Boohoo get smarter
Try xqc, compared to that nothing is fast
I got an ad for a Bigfoot podcast right after this...
I was just looking for music...
Somehow found your channel, hi I guess.
Thank you! 💕
The Kinks had some great songs.
this video felt like jamming my head into a running microwave