Sexual Fetish Patterns

[Guest]

I've always suspected that fetishes emerge when one's vital powers are constrained by the environment and are not allowed to grow into more natural desires. The "type" of a fetish is a reaction to the kind of constraint/repression that one experienced during early sexual development (this is probably where the particular/focused fetishes come from). This would explain why fetishes seem to be more common among the urban (people whose vital forces are subject to more intense repression). Both Sadism and Masochism derive their names from 18th-19th century European aristocrats, which is telling.

While everyone is still focused on this thread, I will use your post as a means to branch off from the Experiential/Fixation fetishes and into a subject I'm more familiar with: de Sade and Leopold von Sacher-Masoch. I have only read Venus in Furs from Sacher-Masoch, but have read (with the exception of Juliette and Aline et Valcour) most of de Sade's works.

Anyways, something that's troubled me ever since is the distinction of sadism and masochism: how it emerged and why their works were used. To some degree, I don't find that people involved with research into "sadism" were properly equipped to handle the weightiness of de Sade — the appropriation of his name is a simple reference for clarity's sake, after his notoriety seeped into the minds of learned Europeans. I will save a discussion on de Sade for later. For now I'll turn to masochism. The use of Sacher-Masoch's name I consider to be a great injustice that is opposed to the purposes of Venus in Furs. Consider the moment near the end of the novella, where the Greek has begun to apply the whip to Severin.

The sensation of being whipped by a successful rival before the eyes of an adored woman cannot be described. I almost went mad with shame and despair.

What was most humiliating was that at first I felt a certain wild, super-sensual stimulation under Apollo's whip and the cruel laughter of my
Venus, no matter how horrible my position was. But Apollo whipped on and on, blow after blow, until I forgot all about poetry, and finally gritted my teeth in impotent rage, and cursed my wild dreams, woman, and love.

All of a sudden I saw with horrible clarity whither blind passion and lust have led man, ever since Holofernes and Agamemnon—into a blind alley, into the net of woman's treachery, into misery, slavery, and death.

It was as though I were awakening from a dream.

Subsequently after, when he has awoken from this dream of degradation and the delusion of the super-sensual, he decides to grit his teeth and return to his family. It is notable that whenever this awakening is complete, he wished to go to war. The Greek Alexis was a war-faring character himself, he is said to "play with the souls and lives of men". But I'm getting ahead of myself, and probably will leave this unedited, so you'll have to bear with this narrative darting back and forth. So here is an earlier passage, which is said by Wanda near the beginning:

The ideal which I strive to realize in my life is the serene sensuousness of the Greeks—pleasure without pain. I do not believe in the kind of love which is preached by Christianity, by the moderns, by the knights of the spirit. Yes, look at me, I am worse than a heretic, I am a pagan.

I don't know how Sacher-Masoch could make it more obvious that, by including a Greek man devoted to warfare, "pleasure without pain" is an illusory statement. Submission is required, pain is required, which is why the arrangement between Severin and Wanda becomes dangerous. Severin, being a man of self-admitted "sensitive" insight, readily sees hostile conditions in nature, but he understands this in an inverted way. Look at how this description a third of the way into the novella lapses into woman-worship:

I developed a perfect passion for reading stories in which the extremest cruelties were described. I loved especially to look at pictures and prints which represented them. All the sanguinary tyrants that ever occupied a throne; the inquisitors who had the heretics tortured, roasted, and butchered; all the woman whom the pages of history have recorded as lustful, beautiful, and violent women
like Libussa, Lucretia Borgia, Agnes of Hungary, Queen Margot, Isabeau, the Sultana Roxolane, the Russian Czarinas of last century—all these I saw in furs or in robes bordered with ermine.

He understands violence but regards women as a part in the profane imagination; it is by nature of its unreal quality that it should be included with gruesome tortures, cruelties unparalleled. For him to no longer believe that torture is a super-sensual delight (especially if committed by a woman), he must be dispossessed of his fantasy. The world of cruelty must intrude into the false delights of the imagination, through the figure of Alexis Papadopolis. "Misery, slavery, death". That is what occurs when the fantasy is brought to its fruition; it is inherently flawed, and dissipates at it continues. Let us then turn to the humorous end of the novella, when the moral is stated in such an upfront fashion. Forgive the length of the quotation.

"And the moral of the story?" I said to Severin when I put the manuscript down on the table.

"That I was a donkey," he exclaimed without turning around, for he seemed to be embarrassed. "If only I had beaten her!"

"A curious remedy," I exclaimed, "which might answer with your peasant-women—"

"Oh, they are used to it," he replied eagerly, "but imagine the effect upon one of our delicate, nervous, hysterical ladies—"

"But the moral?"

"That woman, as nature has created her and as man is at present educating her, is his enemy. She can only be his slave or his despot, but never his companion. This she can become only when she has the same rights as he, and is his equal in education and work.

"At present we have only the choice of being hammer or anvil, and I was the kind of donkey who let a woman make a slave of him, do you understand?

"The moral of the tale is this: whoever allows himself to be whipped, deserves to be whipped.

"The blows, as you see, have agreed with me; the roseate supersensual mist has dissolved, and no one can ever make me believe again that these 'sacred apes of Benares' or Plato's rooster are the image of God."

Venus in Furs is a novella about intellectual development, of an enduring interest in violence, and the follies of revering women. There is not too much to say about the subject, but it is incredibly distinct from what is now considered to be masochism in the popular sense. If masochism were modeled upon the narrative of events within Venus in Furs, it would be a young sensitive man preoccupied with violence and torture, suddenly led astray with a false fantasy of womanly power, then being set on the right track. Hierarchy is re-established, and pain is properly administered.

I was just reading this article and felt that it had similar points with what you were talking about.https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-...eo-strauss

On the surface, Bloom offered Reagan’s America a defense of the literary canon and old-fashioned morality against the “relativism” of the post-’60s left. But perspicacious readers—including Bloom’s former student, the queer theorist Eve Sedgwick—would notice he argued that the true pedagogue awakens intelligent young men to free thinking by inculcating contempt for democracy and mass culture, and that this awakening includes a (homo)erotic element.

As his friend Saul Bellow reports in Ravelstein, his novelized version of Bloom’s last days, the philosopher spent much of their conversations speculating about the sexuality of his students—and thus, potentially, their sexual availability. He had a passion for bringing young male minds to philosophy and young male bodies to his bed. Indeed, Closing of the American Mind and Bloom’s final essay in his less-read but far more brilliant Love and Friendship are semi-clandestine justifications for a postmodern version of the original “Socratic method” of combining erotic and intellectual approaches to pedagogy.

With what @Lohengrin said earlier about right wing people being sexual deviants I would say that sexual deviants are instead attracted to the master morality, but they can only enjoy it in a perverted way. They lack the true ability to make themselves master from some foible in their psyche, but they still endeavor towards it imperfectly. This is why you get homosexuals like Milo Yiannopoulos and that other brown gay who hung out with Fuentes on the right. A weak minded person breaks from the idea of such cruelty. They can only approach it through a sexual way.

[Guest]

It is all the same 'mah dick'. Some just rationalize this way or that way. Ugly people don't matter.

[Handi]

...

I get shit on every time I make this point - but it is an observation that I hold to: First, degradation/humiliation fetishes can only ever take root in those that spiritually acknowledge the significance of degradation. Second - and this is the part that pisses people off -  typically these are men born to innately right wing dispositions. If one doesn't implicitly acknowledge a form of natural order and assign moral valuations to the sexual act, then one is precluded from the possibility of a thrill at transgression, degradation, and humiliation--- profanity demands the attendance of the sacred.
...
People joke about the incel2tranny pipeline, and of course the idea has merit - but there was also the less well-known (but not uncommon) /pol/tard2tranny pipeline. It is not really a surprising phenomena. The tension in the contradiction between libidinal desire and the noble spirit has two effective ends - a culmination in extreme violence, murderous rage  - or an absolute sublimation/acceptance. For many, they asymptotically approach the former before eventually surrenderin to horrifying reality of it. As the process terminates, they unconditionally accept the fetish completely and willfully graft it onto their identity - thus obtaining a sense of ownership and control over it.

I wholly concur, and I've often been made mockery of as well for asserting my belief that a significant demographic of interracial porn and cuckold consumers are of Right dispositions and inclinations.  They accept propriety over women, they accept racial superiority, so on and so forth, only with the Negro supplanted over the White man.  Simply put, all of our beliefs but reversed and flipped on its head.  Either already accepting from the start, or having submitted to the "BBC" propaganda relentlessly spammed from certain avenues across the interwebs, especially on 4chan.  Repetition of "eugenics" about the "superior genes" niggers possess, that women desperately require for the survival of our species.  I assume it's also very difficult for a 'sissy' to explain how he happily adopts these beliefs in a similar manner, how he eagerly accepts his position as a modern puer delicatus.  They understand how domination and submission works, and chose the side of submission.  I haven't myself made very many anthropological studies on them, but I have observed among trannies that something is "off" about them, that they are not merely content with a looser gender identity, but rather that women are the inferior sex, and they see themselves as the same level, if not substantially lower.  In correspondence with friends, I've often made the comparison this is a continuation of classical Roman sexual mores.

The reason this is retarded on its face and eminently mockable is that inverting a value is not "the same thing" as holding it upright. A core defining feature of rightism is that values and hierarchies need and ought to be oriented in a particular direction as a matter of material consequence, and are not just conceptual dildoes for gnostic tranny self-pleasuring. Violating this principle, especially with full knowledge and intent of doing so, cannot be reasonably categorized as rightist.

Owning your wife, and masturbating as you watch niggers fuck her because you get off on the humiliation of failing to own her, are not of the same spiritual inclination just because they share reference to a common value scale or derive their meaning from the same symbol.

It's like saying that burning a Koran acknowledges the text as a sacred symbol and therefore makes you a devout Muslim. Nominalism is a symptom of shit for brains.

[turnip]

Interesting thread. I want to attempt a proper answer to the question put forth in the OP:

what is the origin of experiential/fixation fetishes?

Desire is molecular. It is not, therefore, inherently bound to particular aggregated objects or images. Even people with normal sexual impulses are often aroused by such things as weapons, machines, sounds, sensations, etc. Beyond this, desire can completely remove objects (or fragments of objects) from their normal functional context and synthesize them into completely new connections, with new uses. This same mechanism can be seen in the "artwork" of schizophrenics (or in dreams, to an extent), and it is the same reason why schizophrenics are immune to something like the hollow mask illusion, i.e. their brain is unable to form functioning psychological heuristics.

The unconscious is comprised of memory-images. Some of them are very recent and fresh, like balloons, microwaves, or family members. Others seem to be of a deep ancestral or pre-historic origin, and have been preserved in the unconscious mind via unknown mechanisms (in this sense, Jungian "archetypes" are real, and you have a "memory" not just of your life as a man but woman, ape, invertebrate, etc.). There is theoretically no limit to how desire can go about constituting new images out of this boundless store of primordial memory-fragments. Even the most hyperreal and bizarre fantasies seem to often incorporate primal or animalistic elements, like the furry or snail fetishes.

Thus, you can see how desire would be capable of taking such strange and idiosyncratic forms. But it becomes a fetish with what happens afterwards, when it is re-triangulated back into the usual neurotic configurations. Instead of developing into some refined or at least individuated form, it converges onto the usual Oedipal, narcissistic or racial obsessions.* What might begin as an aesthetic fascination with a particular object or body part like feet quickly devolves into a submissive humiliation fetish. At this point the topic becomes rather dull in my opinion, as these neuroses are very widespread, and naturally produced by society. Looking at our world, at least, I don't find it difficult to infer why people end up with these obscene obsessions with feminization, body dysmorphia/transformation, age regression, racial humiliation, and so on.


*It seems likely, as well, that many people are simply biologically incapable of developing their own desire, one way or another.

[JohnTrent]

..inverting a value is not "the same thing" as holding it upright. A core defining feature of rightism is that values and hierarchies need and ought to be oriented in a particular direction as a matter of material consequence, and are not just conceptual dildoes for gnostic tranny self-pleasuring. Violating this principle, especially with full knowledge and intent of doing so, cannot be reasonably categorized as rightist.

Handi's on the right track here. Subversion has its own respective value when it comes to desires, the factor of ruination that @GraphWalkWithMe mentioned. There is a different mental palette of sensibilities that are found in the mind of a subversive fetishist: a White person is observed to be a social superior, and therefore a subversion or degrading of the White identity fulfills the subversive desire most. I can see how someone may be originally disposed towards right-wing beliefs could fall into this after a period of suffering defeatism, but you have to consider that the race-mixing fetishist might not even see the white person as Good in the first place. Race-mixing can be caused by slave morality ressentiment. Whenever pajeets get mad on Elonsite they start attempting to demoralize their detractors with "You're going to get replaced by us" and other variations. If Gandhi's words are any evidence, Indians somehow believe that they are in essence superior to us, so their attempts of demoralizing Westerners is their way of affirming their feelings of superiority. It is little different from those with 90/sub-90 IQs trying to belittle men of higher intelligence, as seen in shitty Hollywood screenplays where the "reserved nerd" is owned by an ugly roastie. A lot of women actually believe they're more intelligent than men. Hilarious, I know.

The perverseness of the White person having a race-mixing fetish comes from how alien that ressentiment really is in his worldview. He shouldn't be adopting it, but not because he has given right-wing inclinations; it simply betrays self-interest, racial perpetuation, and his community at large. It is also artificially sanctioned by ZOG, and promoted through broadcasted media, further complicating the initial disgust and feeling of betrayal most would have. When in war, defecting to the other side is an irregular decision, usually suggesting that the soldier in specific had disgruntled opinions towards his side from the beginning. On some level, one must see subversion as a "good thing" if they really want to be a race-mixer, or consume race-mixing pornography. The shitlib that adopts this fetish is operating on wildly different thought-patterns than a right-wing character; he is trying to "own" the right-wing man by disseminating this material, and encouraging race-mixing through his posts. And, like the defection example, you would have to actively support the other side to ever ally with them. Most people, even now, do not wish to do this, and I find truly right-wing characters similarly unwilling.

---

Edit Note: Upon further inspection, I have removed the Bataille comment about eroticism and the sacred. I had said that the oneness which eroticism and the sacred share in Bataille's thought is inapplicable here, but discussing that is not helpful in a post like this. Such comments would be more useful in an isolated analysis of Bataille himself.

[capgras]

Okay, I read your thing over a few times and the third thing "unreflective heterosexuality" is the absolute you think is at risk of concepting if we talk about such things?

Yes, the domain is artificially restricted to UH to lend empty deconstruction legitimacy. 

How does this fetish stuff actually reflect the failure of zoomies to relate to the matrix movies aka the desire to exist in a real world?

What do you expect sexless men with access to unlimited porn to do, especially when they have little social life to antagonize their fantasies? 

Or, like other people bring up, how much of this is just downstream of a drought of confidence/will mixed with guilt over edgelord transgressions? I speak of the desire to be an entity that would be held redeemed by this cringe society "hey maybe if I were a faggot it wouldn't be so neurotically distressing that I had been an edgy racist in 5th grade and anyone could mention that to me at any time or could be thinking it inside their heads because someone told them" even if they never reveal this crafted self publicly, preferring even just to be something that would be acceptably neutered.

I doubt edgelord regret is common outside niche online communities. It's also far more likely the regret is caused by the desire to gain acceptance in trannycords, not the other way around. 

It seems that corruptibility of the basic sexuality package is dependent on particular circumstances and mental deficiencies. If there is a different conclusion to draw then argue it.

I didn't phrase that well. It is prone to corruption. What I meant is that it's problematized in a way that allows enlightenment regarding the topic to emerge only through its deconstruction. The corruptibility is exaggerated to justify the inclusion of aspects of the subject matter that require reference to something prior to it, an amorphization and accusation of guilt.

I don't get what you mean here and if someone does word games we can just call them out for pilpul? What arguments are you thinking of? I can't imagine what dialectic hyperparameters you see doing this? Do you just mean the fake absolute inducing this by its presence?

Yes it's the artificial restriction that induces it. It's ubiquitous in the humanities: a discipline is restricted to (or even created out of) a tenuous theory which is given consensus status so that critiquing it seems worthy of funding and can be done without engaging with naughty ideas. A simpler way of putting it would be looking for/creating easy problems to solve, or problems requiring a different skill set better suited to the author or people like them. War is reduced to chess.

[capgras]

We're at a particular point of time where sexual development is unmoored by innumerable external sources detached from the formative conditions of our species. What is clear - if nothing else - is that the formation of a well-disposed sexuality is a more fragile process than it should be. Aside from that, the nature of libidinal desire is interesting if only because the reproductive drive (in either a direct - or sublimated - form) profoundly orients the course of the human animal.

The idea that human sexuality is limited to and descends from the reproductive drive is incredibly reductive. You'll probably try to deny claiming this. If you do you admit your posts are rooted in questionable priors and/or intentionally ignored relevant concerns that render your position wrong or otherwise beneath consideration.

One understands the nature of subatomic particles by engineering high speed collisions and analyzing scattering patterns. By analogy, the libidinal nature of the life drive always betrays hidden elements of its nature in the corresponding failure modes. It is worthy of discussion for the same reason that hallucinogenic drugs are, not because it enables higher insight or because it allows a communion with the divine --- but in that what remains after the waves are torn asunder is a view of the ocean floor. Word games are a risk, but probably unavoidable when the topic because the weakness of our words necessitates at least a (mild) esotericism.

Behold the subtlety with which I've smeared shit on my bedroom walls! August yellows complementing wintry browns, textures variegated and refined. A barren spot suggesting through its apparent contingency the necessity of my masterpiece and the inevitability of its creator.

[capgras]

Swine discuss the intricacies of slop. Three little piggies stand snout over trough in eager anticipation. The first says the chunky bits are the best. The second finds chunky bits an abomination; the best slop is a purée of consistent texture. The third oinks "Oink! Oink!" as the farmer cries "Suuuuuuuuu Weeeeeeee!"