I see a lot of people get confused about the topic of “fetishization.” They’re all “people complain about fetishizing trans people/fat chicks/bi women/women of color, that means it’s anti-feminist to be attracted to trans people/fat chicks/bi women/women of color!” And then half of them are like “therefore FEMINISTS HATE YOUR BONERS!” and the other half are like “therefore I must self-flagellate about my evil evil boner.”
No. Feminists do not hate your boner, and you should not self-flagellate about your evil evil boner. It is not anti-feminist to be attracted to trans people/fat chicks/bi women/women of color. It is not even anti-feminist to be attracted to a trans bi fat woman of color!
Fetishization is not about attraction, it’s about using your attraction as an excuse to objectify people. The misdefinition of objectification is one of the very few things I get legitimately angry about (my sources of anger are few and geeky), so let’s review what it means with the help of Granny Weatherwax:
“And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is.”
“It’s a lot more complicated than that–”
“No it ain’t. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they’re getting worried that they won’t like the truth. People as things, that’s where it starts.”
“Oh, I’m sure there are worse crimes-”
“But they starts with thinking about people as things…”
Basically, “don’t fetishize me” means “don’t treat me like a thing because you’re attracted to me.”
One of the really common ways that fetishization plays out is the assumption that people you’re attracted to exist for your boner. For instance, dominant women in the kink scene regularly report submissive males assuming that because she’s dominant and female that she wants to dom them in exactly the way they want to be dommed. I mean! She’s dominant! In public! Clearly that means you don’t even have to ask before you lick her boots and call her Mistress.
Similarly, fat women who post pictures of themselves on Tumblr often get reblogged onto porn blogs, because clearly the only reason someone would post a picture of themselves on the Internet is so you can talk about how much you want to stick your dick in their fat jiggling ass. Fat women also often face problems with chubby chasers whose apparent thought process is something along the lines of “we have so much in common: you’re fat, and I like fat women.” For fat women and other women culturally considered unattractive, there’s also this really nasty “look, people who are attracted to you are so rare that you should be willing to fuck literally anyone who’s attracted to you” angle.
(PSA: you should not be willing to fuck literally anyone who’s attracted to you. Sex is amazingly much better if you’re attracted to the person you’re with and they care about you enjoying yourself too.)
Furthermore, a lot of the reasons that people give for being attracted to certain kinds of women are… really really gross. For instance, you should not believe “bi chicks are hot because two girls fucking is hot!” As a bi, poly, and female-presenting person, I have met approximately ten million people who believe this. I am sad to disappoint all of them by pointing out that when I fuck a lady, it’s because I want to fuck that lady, not because I want to give some other random dude a boner. It’s almost as if my sexual orientation is not entirely related to giving dudes boners. (I also hate threesomes and have no interest in being the third in your marriage. Sorry to crush all your Hot Bi Babe dreams.)
“I like Japanese girls because I love sushi and anime and I want a girl I can–” NOPE. You know there are Japanese women who grew up in Iowa and like McDonalds and Glee, right? You can’t assume that every person of a particular ethnicity shares all the traits you associate with that ethnicity. (Not to mention “I want a Japanese girl because Japanese girls are submissive and moe and I have never actually met a Japanese person” guy. Do not be that guy. If you become that guy I will fly to your house and light all your hentai on fire.)
“I like trans women because they’re the best of both worlds! A combination of male and female!” No, trans women are women, stop invalidating people’s genders. Furthermore, ‘best of both worlds’ implies all trans women have penises, which is just… not true.
“Ozy, you’re saying I can’t be attracted to anyone!” No, I’m not. It is perfectly fine to be interested in women who want to have threesomes with you, or women who like sushi and anime, or people who combine male and female– just don’t call those groups “bi women,” “Japanese women,” and “trans women,” because that isn’t true. Similarly, it’s perfectly fine to be attracted to women with penises or people with typically East Asian features or fat women, as long as you’re not an asshole about it.
A related issue is whether it’s possible to fetishize conventionally attractive, privileged women. My intuition would be “yes,” but for some reason the feminist movement has decided to go with “fetishization” for fetishization of marginalized groups and “sexual objectification” for fetishization of conventionally attractive and privileged women. I don’t get it.
True story: A fat friend of mine once had a random dude yelling “hot ass!” after her in the street, and when she turned around and glared angrily at him he went “You should be grateful, there aren’t many dudes who like asses that big!”. Um, yeah.
Another true story: In my teens I dated a guy who was feeling really guilty about being sexually attracted to me, because I was conventionally attractive, and he thought you’re not supposed to get boners for conventionally attractive women if you’re a feminist. I eventually talked him out of that view though.
A third true story: I’m now married to a man who’s just completely neutral about the fact that I’m bi. These men exist! They’re just really rare. (And it’s obviously nothing morally wrong with thinking bi women are hot for being bi as long as you’re not an asshole about it, but it’s pretty refreshing to, for once, meet someone who doesn’t think so.)
I find the difference between “Fetishization” and “Objectification” a little insulting, honestly. The way I hear it talked about frequently in coversation, it sounds like “Objectifying” is doing what you’re supposed to (being attracted to the ‘right’ people) but in the wrong way, whereas fetishizing you’re not even supposed to LIKE that. You’re choosing something ‘wrong’ and enjoying it, when you should be liking people for what they REALLY are.
Where the line is drawn between fetishization and objectification always seems to be based on privilege.
One thing I’ve always wondered is why any time someone says, “I like trans men as a monolith” or “I like Asian women as a monolith” or whatever, someone always rightly points out that there’s no meaning to those statements: not all trans men are alike, not all Asian women are alike and whatever stereotype you’re using to assume you’re attracted to [person] based on [label] is most likely ridiculous. HOWEVER, if someone says, “I like *women* as a monolith” nobody takes issue with this and it gets the nice shiny label of heterosexuality or lesbianism as the case may be and it’s assumed to be natural and unquestionable and even genetic and life chugs along. This confuses the hell out of me and I wish someone would explain it. There is NO overarching characteristic that all women have. They are not all empathetic or short or soft or in possession of certain genitalia or whatever so why is it a-ok to say “I’m only attracted to women because [reason]” where [reason] must necessarily be based on stereotypes (or, even worse, because [no reason at all--I just am!]) and not ok to say, “I’m only attracted to [any other marginalized group].”
This is an interesting conception of objectification and quite different from the way I’ve heard feminists define it before, but I think that it suffers from some of the same problems as the more common definition.
Specifically, that objectification seems to be based on the idea of male sexual desire as somehow sociopathic, when this is removed the message becomes simply ‘don’t be rude’ or ‘be less presumptuous’
Many of the examples the OP gives would be considered entirely appropriate if done by women to men because women’s desire is on average not considered to be evil, icky or degrading.
I think that is what the half of men that say ‘feminists hate our boners’ are getting at.
@Sasori, Ozy’s examples focused on male-female dynamics, but what about them is specific to MALE patterns of sexual desire? Are you sure it would actually be considered appropriate for me, a straight white woman, to say “Oh I love black men for their big dicks and because they all really appreciate a curvy woman?”
More to the point, even if it were considered appropriate, does that mean that is OK, and we should really get off men’s backs and stop criticizing them for fetishizing fat women, or bi women, or Japanese women? I think it would mean just the opposite – that white women’s fetishistic desires are ERRONEOUSLY considered harmless, and that we really need to be paying more attention to that. Because it would be degrading for me to trumpet my love for black men based on racist stereotypes… wouldn’t it?
@Sasori – I don’t see how Ozy’s post pathologizes male desire in any way. The post goes out of its way to explain what kind of desires are ok! I guess if you believe that male desire inherently works by objectifying people then the post condemns all male desire — but then that’s your screwy view of male desire, not Ozy’s.
@Andy – I think there’s a good case to be made that heterosexuality is a form of fetishization like any other, and therefore is problematic (or at least worth interrogating) on the same grounds. But it gets hidden by the discourse of orientation as given and neutral that has been promoted as the mainstream liberal route to LGBT rights.
@Andy WRT orientation, I would read identifying as (for example) a heterosexual male not as saying “I am attracted to women as a monolith” but as “I am not attracted to people who are not women”. Or, to restate, identifying as a heterosexual male implies that “if I am attracted to person X, then person X is female” and not “if person X is female, then I am attracted to person X”. It’s been a long time since I last studied formal logic, so I can’t recall the terminology I’m afraid.
I spoke primarily about fetishizing women because most of the discourse I’m familiar with around fetishization is about fetishizing women, and I didn’t want to give examples of fetishization that don’t reflect men’s lived experiences. However, fetishizing non-women and fetishizing women are equally bad and you should not do either of them.
Also, yes, “don’t fetishize people” really does boil down to “don’t be a dick.”
@Brian, I’m sure this isn’t what you intended but I can’t help but read “if I am attracted to person X, then person X is female” as “if I am attracted to person X, then they become (or must ID as) female whether they like it or not”
But anyway, you can easily restate, “I am only attracted to Asian women” as “I am not attracted to women who aren’t Asian” and I’m not sure that makes THAT sentiment better…
@Andy. Both excellent points. And yes, that was not my intention (re. how I stated my if-thens), but I can see how it could read that way. At the moment, I can’t think of a better way of wording it, so a) sorry about the poor choice of words, b) if I can come up with a non-problematic way of putting the statement, I’ll try to do so, and c) if I *can’t* come up with a non-problematic way of stating it, that’s a sign that I might want to re-think the concept entirely.
In some ways, I suppose that statements of attraction *may* be less problematic if stated as history than as descriptive. At least, I would find the statement “thus far, every person that I have been attracted to has identified as female and has typically East Asian features” to be less problematic than “I am only attracted to asian women” (at least in part because I tend to believe that most people have only a limited amount of control over who they find attractive). Then again, it’s hard to separate away the *why* factor — if the attraction is based on a stereotypical belief about the group so described, it becomes more problematic again.
It’s complicated (which is likely not very surprising).
I wrote about just this topic here: A Meditation of Ethical Fetishism. Well, very similar to this topic, at least.
I’m convinced that “fetish” is one of those words that a lot of people use inappropriately, and that’s probably because there’s no other word quite like it. At least, not one that implies from the get-go that the speaker’s an assbutt. It’s also one of those words that nobody wants to fucking talk about in any intelligent capacity whatsoever, because it’s so conveniently vague for most folks. The situation is so stupid (and so invisible) that I don’t even call myself a fetishist anymore, and have just cut to the chase with “paraphile” because that’s a word you’re not going to see every day, and it’s going to force you to actually think the fuck about what it means so I can maybe possibly have something resembling a conversation with you.
The downside to this is because there is so much stigma and hostility and hate packed into what little conversation there is, it makes it extremely hard for people who are stuck with these feelings who want to do the right thing… to learn how to do the right thing. The fetish “spectrum”, according to feminism and sex positivity seems to consist of exactly two categories: pedophiles, rapists, and racist shits on the one end, and… mainstream bdsm play on the other end. I’ve been trying to puzzle over that conception for a long time, and I’ve got nothing other than “that’s complete and utter bullshit that doesn’t reflect the nuanced reality of fucking… anything”. Conversation needs to change.
Okay, so how about this suggestion for heterosexuality: “I’m only attracted to people whom I at least initially perceive as being of the opposite gender”? That seems to be how it works for a lot of heteros.
And there’s probably a good case to be made for there being no intrinsic difference between “orientation” and “fetishization”. That’s what bugged me about the old Manboobz thread about racist boners… Yeah, it’s probably good to do a little introspection if you only find yourself attracted to a certain kind of person, and if you do find some kind of prejudice there, work on it. On the other hand, if you can’t really find any explanation (which is not to say that there ISN’T some complicated psychological explanation somewhere, just that it’s not of the simple kind “because I have prejudice X about group Y I only want to bang group Y”), well, there doesn’t seem much to do about it except accepting that your boner is the way it is.
It’s problematic to hold prejudices about certain groups of people, it’s problematic to think people are less worthy of respect because they don’t give you boners, it’s problematic to be AFRAID that you’re one day are gonna find your boner behaving differently than it did in the past, but if none of this applies to a person and zie still, say, only gets the hots for Asian people – I honestly don’t think that’s a moral problem, and I don’t think zie must pressure zirself into dating/banging non-Asians or anything like that.
hmm. perhaps I’m wrong
(my post was also too accusatory for which I apologise), but I tried to gender flip the examples in the OP, size/weight, bisexuality, nationality and I couldn’t see overt expression of desire for these traits being considered negative, treating a person as an object, or anything but a positive expression of sexuality (when gender flipped).
I tried with people at lunch today to think of lady-fetishes that are considered not ok; big arms, thighs, penis, six pack, nationality, waifish/rakish, ability to play sport or music were some of the stuff that came up, and lots of women were fine with letting a man know that she found some superficial aspect of his appearance or ‘presence’ attractive or sexy and most men were ok with this and often welcomed it.
The only one we could come up with that was not considered ok was ‘rich’ but even then that was borderline and dependent on circumstance.
I was trying to think why this is so different on average for men and women. Maybe it’s as you say that ‘women’s fetishistic desires are erroneously considered harmless’ or maybe it is that the perceived scarcity of female desire makes it seem a rare and precious (with the opposite for the surfeit of male desire), perhaps it is that women are considered nicer and less exploitative than men, but I really don’t know
@f
ymmv but in my experience (in the UK) not only it is mostly ok for white women to say they like black men in a physical sense (or for certain physical traits) and to be vocal about it but it is often welcomed.
There is in afro-Caribbean UK culture a big tradition of pride in the male physique and expression of desire for that is mostly welcomed.
@Andy, isn’t the overarching trait of (cis) women biological, i.e. on average a vagina and/or secondary sex characteristics.
http://red3blog.tumblr.com/post/12577851781/a-message-to-my-fellow-fat-admirers-dudes-what is pretty relevant here.
“So, I’ve noticed some of my fellow male fat admirers throwing tantrums when women object to be sexualized without consent. These dudes whine about how the women are telling them aren’t allowed to find fat bodies attractive.
“Cut that shit out. Like now.
“No one is out to confiscate your boners. Sexual attraction to fat bodies is totally awesome. There may be people out there who want to shame you for your sexuality, but its not these women. So, by all means, holster your outrage and listen up.
“The issue these women are complaining about isn’t sexual attraction. They are asking to be treated with respect and dignity. Try not to be shocked at this stunning request. You still get that be sexually attracted to fat women. Just, maybe respect them.
“And actually, strike that maybe.
“Don’t act all mystified at this concept. Its possible to interact with people you feel a sexual attraction towards without sexualizing them. Sexual attraction doesn’t mandate objectification. That’s just you being an asshole. Trust me, I’ve been attracted to fat women as long as I can remember. I’m still able to appreciate context and react accordingly. Its NOT. FUCKING. HARD. I’m sick and tired of men acting like this is impossible and that people are trying to police their arousal. Are these women saying its wrong to have sexual desire for fat bodies? NO. Its not about your sexuality. Its about THEIR sexuality. They may well be very happy to experience a fat admirer’s sexual desire, but on their terms and with their consent. This isn’t outrageous or obnoxious. Its their right.”
It was hard not to quote the whole post.
F.: well, from what I’ve seen fetishization of black men (in particular for their endowments) by white women is pretty popular. (And man-on-man porn is much more popular than you might think)
I’m attracted to bi women, and I can’t change that. This is for many reasons, and yes, one is because I respond to the idea of two women together, just as I respond to two men together. But part of me wishes to be one of those women. Yeah, I’m weird.
Irene, that was AWESOME. Thanks for sharing.
“As a bi, poly, and female-presenting person, I have met approximately ten million people who believe this. I am sad to disappoint all of them by pointing out that when I fuck a lady, it’s because I want to fuck that lady, not because I want to give some other random dude a boner. It’s almost as if my sexual orientation is not entirely related to giving dudes boners.”
*slow fucking clap*
I wrote a rant about this that I didn’t put on my blog because I didn’t want to deal with the hate it would get (I posted it on Facebook instead), but basically the gist was exactly this.
I’m sorry if I offended anybody with what I wrote. I don’t know why, but I relate to bi women.
Oh, and Ozy, you’d be interested to know that Granny Weatherwax’s definition of sin is almost word for word the same as Reverend William Sloan Coffin’s definition of evil (although he added the reverse – treating objects as people).
@monkey: Am I correct in thinking that I remember you saying that you are cis on several occasions?
L: I guess I’m cis by default. I feel that I’ve missed out onthe opportunity to be gender queer – I’m too introverted, timid and old.
I have always been attracted to bi women, even before I acknowledged my own bisexuality. But I never liked the idea of the threesome with it being all about the guys pleasure. I was attracted to the (admittedly romanticized) intimacy between women, mAybe subconsciously relAted to my desire to be intimate with men)
In any case, nowadays dating a bi wOman is more about being with someone who can understand my own fluid sexuality .
@Ozy:
Your post is… well, awesome, and very useful. Thank you!
WHAT I LEARNED: Be prepared to interrogate what you say you want, because what you say you want might be disrespectful!
Very interesting article Ozy. I don’t talk about this too often, but I’ve been interracially married for 18 years. Before getting involved in sexual violence work, I founded The Multiracial Activist which acted as a news outlet and advocacy org for interracial families and multiracial individuals. I’ve seen the “fetishism” argument used 8 gazillion times against all combinations of interracial couples that you can imagine. My wife is black. I hear that garbage far too often and mostly from privileged white women who don’t like seeing a (in their racialist eyes) white man with a non-white, and ZOMG black woman. I have zero stomach for that anymore. People in committed relationships are people in committed relationships. For anyone, feminist or not, to decide they have any right to disparage interracial relationships with the “fetishism” excuse is abhorrent. I have seldom met a person who used that argument against interracial relationships who wasn’t a racist or racialist. Does fetishism exist? No doubt. Unfortunately, those using the terminology most often seem to be doing so to mask their own prejudices and ugly thoughts, rather than out of real concern. Then, there is the arrogance that they some women get to decide for other women what types of relationships are approved. Ugh.
My objections to “objectification” | Slate Star Codex