Mister T made an interesting comment on whether or not my fascination with smoking is actually a fetish. I’ve always thought of it as one since it isn’t something that people normally find attractive or if they find it attractive they might not be sexually aroused solely from watching people smoke. For me, there has always been a connection between smoking and sex, even before I was aware that what I was feeling was sexual arousal. I don’t necessarily need it to become aroused, but it is the fastest, easiest way to sexual arousal. Pretty much all of my own personal fantasies involve smoking and have for many years now.
I think it all depends on how you define a fetish. Fetishism is still diagnosable in the DSM-IV and ICD as paraphilia, but only if the fetish causes distress or has a detrimental affect on that person’s life. In that regard, I’m not sure what I have does cause me enough distress or not enough to be diagnosable. That said, there is even a movement to get away from the diagnosis of fetishes since the fact that they can be diagnosed causes much social stigma. The wiki page (as much as you have to be careful with info you find on wikipedia) is very informative on this topic.
A fetish is a powerful and consuming thing, almost like a virus, kidnapping and controlling one’s sexuality. You may be fascinated by smoking, or even feel compelled to do it, but unless smoking is essential to feed your sexual desire you probably do not have a fetish.
You make an interesting point- by that definition of a fetish, I probably don’t have one. But at the same time, I feel like it is more than a fascination since almost every sexual fantasy I have involves smoking of some sort, and I think that might be abnormal. I think it might also be because the word fetish is being adopted not only by people that do suffer from their fetishes, but people who live normal lives who have embraced their fetishes. Maybe that means they are not technically fetishes anymore, at least not in the diagnosable sense, but people have still embraced the word. One day, maybe it will be like the work queer- which was initially a slur, but the gay community has embraced it as a way of identifying themselves. I found this blog, Fetish Burden, also had a fairly good description of what a fetish is and I think I identify with his definition as well.
Another thing that makes me think that this is a fetish vs just a fascination is how early it manifested itself. I found smoking to be a turn-on before I even knew what a turn-on was. I’m not sure why, but I’ve heard some people compare sexual fetishes to sexual orientation, as something you are born with and that is pretty much impossible to change. That opens up another can of worms in that evidence of sexual orientation as being something you are born with. I happen to believe that there is a biological basis to sexual orientation so maybe there is some biological basis to fetishes. There is no evidence I can use to back this up. In fact, from the searches I did for academic journal articles on the topic, there is very little.
I could probably go on, but I have a feeling I might not be making sense anymore. I guess regardless of what my fascination with smoking is, I will continue to refer to it as a fetish as that is how I have thought of it for many year. Thank you everyone for your comments. I really appreciate them and it is nice to know that others out there can sympathize, since I think the hardest part about this is how lonely it can be. I will probably address all of the comments over the next week or so as many of them have sparked ideas for new posts. Until next time…
December 7, 2008 at 1:38 pm
I’m not really arguing about the terminology. Maybe you do have a fetish- I really don’t know. What I am arguing is what the label of fetishism implies, the sense of abnormality, the “diagnosability” of it. I just don’t get the feeling that you have a disorder, just that you have an intense fascination with smoking, which is absolutely normal.
All through the previous century, the eroticism of smoking was plainly evident, and at that time it was considered at the most risque. In some movies, what would be called fetishism now didn’t even raise an eyebrow then. In the past 20 years that has changed, mostly due to cultural rejection of smoking. Thus, the boundary line between fetishism and fascination is decided by cultural fashion, and it is not clear cut and absolute. I’m just concerned that because smoking is currently unfashionable you are relegating yourself to a box where your fascination becomes a dark and unwholesome thing.
It really doesn’t need to be, in my opinion. It really is OK to let go and enjoy it. It can be immensely pleasurable, and if it is a source of enjoyment and excitement to you, why be bashful about it? People will generally accept it, as long as this is what you want to do.
December 7, 2008 at 4:26 pm
I just want to clarify my previous comment: I believe that anything less than a fetish is not a fetish, and thus is not harmful (although see Vesperae’s excellent comment on the risky charms of smoking). My complaint is that what was once sub-fetishistic is now considered fetishistic, and that is where I advise caution in categorizing onself as fetishistic using the contemporary definitions.
If it is harmless and non-contolling, it can be great fun. It can add some interest and spice to life. It should just be enjoyed, in my opinion, since there is really no reason to worry.
And that’s all I have to say about that.
December 8, 2008 at 1:05 am
“If it is harmless and non-contolling, it can be great fun. It can add some interest and spice to life. It should just be enjoyed, in my opinion, since there is really no reason to worry.”
For me, right now, I would say my fascination is pretty harmless and non-controlling and I am writing this blog to maybe come to terms with it and ultimately get to a point where I’m not bashful about it.
I questioned my sexuality at one point in my life and I think I can see what you are saying about labels. They can be confining and you can end up putting yourself into a box that you might not belong in. I think that is what you are scared I am doing, which is why you don’t like the use of the word fetish- because of all the negative connotations.
I can even see how it might be easier to admit that you think smoking is sexy to someone than the flat out say that you have a smoking fetish. The difference in terminology could possibly make the difference between telling someone and staying “in the closet” so to speak.
For the purposes of writing I might still refer to it as a fetish sometimes- but I’ll have you know I am thinking about this terminology problem. Thank you for your very thoughtful comments. You have given me more to think about and that is always good.
December 8, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Words are only as powerful as the power that we give them. Labels can be either an insult or a badge of identity. Terminology can either obfuscate or elucidate. A Fetish can be a psychopathology that controls your life or a colorful kink that makes living more interesting. It all depends on your point of view and attitude.
But one thing is absolutely certain in my experience as not only a queer woman, but as a kinky queer woman – denial about who you are and about what turns you on is a recipe for not only absolute misery, but for all sorts of maladaptive psychological and social behaviors.
As long as you are honest with yourself and with your partners, and as long as consenting adults are involved in whatever sex / Fetish play you are involved with (including smoking), you have nothing to be ashamed of in my opinion.
June 24, 2009 at 2:07 am
I was just having a discussion yesterday about whether or not a smoking fetish could have biological origins. My feeling is that the answer is either strictly “no” or strictly “yes” depending on how you define the term “biological basis”. I believe that the fetish develops 100% in response to early developmental influences. In that sense, I would say the answer is strictly “no”. But, if you want to be even stricter, then you could say that all things that we “learn” to do, all behaviors, are either facilitated or mediated through neurochemistry, which is, of course, genetically regulated in its nature. That is to say, some peoples’ makeup, genetically, could predispose them to a higher capacity to learn or develop certain behaviors, when presented with the appropriate stimuli. Whereas others may not be as susceptible. If we’re going to take that angle, the strictly “yes” angle, then we sort of need to say that *everything* is genetic. I suppose what we really need to do is some identical twin studies!
June 24, 2009 at 3:58 pm
I had to look back to see what I wrote, because I could not remember 🙂 But you make some good points here. I think the reason why I used the term “biologically based” is because all (or almost all) behaviour is a production of both your genes and your environment. There are very few things in this world that are strictly genetic or strictly learned. Pre-dispositions are funny things because people will often misconstrue them to mean that because you are pre-disposed to something you will eventually get it/be afflicted. The plastic thing is the environment. I am with you- that environment is the biggest contributor to the development of a smoking fetish. Things get messy with genes because it is hard to say where the gene influence ends and the environment influence begins. This is why you would need a twin study to determine any of this, and even those studies would be inconclusive. I’m not sure the origin is strictly early childhood, but at some point I must have been told/seen on TV as a child that smoking is bad bad bad and that I will become hopelessly addicted should I ever touch a cigarette – based on what my early childhood nightmares were and how early my first experiences being aroused by thoughts of smoking were. I’m not sure where my early notions that I would like it very much if I tried it came from, but I was convinced of it. I’m pretty sure they never told us smoking was pleasurable at school, but maybe that is something my young mind came to the conclusion to on its own having watched relatives and such smoke. I think the development of my fetish was largely environmental. But there were many, many stimuli over the course of many years and much denial as well.
January 14, 2014 at 2:44 am
Even rats can become fetishists – experiences related to first sexual intercourse and ejaculation can shape mamale brain for the rest of its life :
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23954746