I’m afraid I have to contend with your reasoning. Yes, it does hold (at least in Freudian circles) that a person’s fascination with bodily functions stems from that individual not having suitably dealt with unconscious sexual conflict during his or her maturation. But I believe this argument points to two interrelated concepts: a) the child is not “choosing” to forgo his or her maturation – certain environmental conditions may present themselves and impede or waylay the “normal” developmental process and 2) it’s become a commonly accepted principle that people do not pick their fetishes. If anything, the fetish (often through happenstance and then association) picks the individual.
So, it does not necessarily follow that the “affected” individual inherently attaches a “dirty” sexual connation with a particular bodily function. Such a qualification more reasonably arises from the individual’s learned conditioning expressed in a society’s socio-cultural mores. And it makes natural sense. Even before the advent of modern science and its accompanying technologies, it was understood that the improper handling of bodily waste led to disease. Hence the labeling of feces as dirty. But to automatically conflate the association of feces with sex as evidence that a particular individual considers sex as something dirty does not necessarily prove true. Nor does it have to naturally lead to a person being classified as aberrant. As mentioned above, sometimes a fetish simply picks the person.
I think the sight of a woman defecating is hot.
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Hi Pfoss,
I’m afraid I have to contend with your reasoning. Yes, it does hold (at least in Freudian circles) that a person’s fascination with bodily functions stems from that individual not having suitably dealt with unconscious sexual conflict during his or her maturation. But I believe this argument points to two interrelated concepts: a) the child is not “choosing” to forgo his or her maturation – certain environmental conditions may present themselves and impede or waylay the “normal” developmental process and 2) it’s become a commonly accepted principle that people do not pick their fetishes. If anything, the fetish (often through happenstance and then association) picks the individual.
So, it does not necessarily follow that the “affected” individual inherently attaches a “dirty” sexual connation with a particular bodily function. Such a qualification more reasonably arises from the individual’s learned conditioning expressed in a society’s socio-cultural mores. And it makes natural sense. Even before the advent of modern science and its accompanying technologies, it was understood that the improper handling of bodily waste led to disease. Hence the labeling of feces as dirty. But to automatically conflate the association of feces with sex as evidence that a particular individual considers sex as something dirty does not necessarily prove true. Nor does it have to naturally lead to a person being classified as aberrant. As mentioned above, sometimes a fetish simply picks the person.