Fetish: Fashion, Sex, and Power [Paperback]

My second objection is perhaps not a new criticism. I tend to cringe when I hear that the combination of being sexy and powerful rescues woman from the bad old days of obligatory femininity. Steele implies this by refusing to take a stance. The strong, yet sexy, woman remains a male fantasy. After all, the corset-clad, high-heel wearing dominatrix acts out the role to please her slave. She is there to help him live out his fantasies. Her pleasure (and this is generally the case whether the woman is dominant or submissive) tends to remain secondary. Steele's modern fetish woman gains pleasure from being pleasing to men and power from being sexually desirable. I would have liked the author to examine this issue further and even to deconstruct it.

Oddly, the largest overarching theory about the connection between obscure fetish gear and high fashion is left implicit in a "perhaps. . ." phrase at the end. That theory is that most behaviors and interests previously thought perverse are being accepted into the mainstream as our society becomes ever more leisure-oriented and pleasure-based. Also unresolved is why fetishism seems to be largely Western and modern--is this a function of social organization, the definition of "fetishism", new sex research, sexual liberation, mass-media communication, all of these? There's an interesting correlation here with the equally culture-specific and modern outbursts of schizophrenia and serial killing (killers who are of course sexually motivated, highly perverse and often fetishistic). This is a query of high social concern, and I'm now more convinced of the role of the mass media--fetishism requires visual stimulation, Steele says, and there's more of that in a wider variety of subject matter than ever before. Not to simply psychology, but it's an interesting factor.

The notion that males rather than females are prone to fetishism is almost borne out by this book itself, as though it took a woman to write sensibly and objectively about fetish/fantasy issues. Conversely, she trips up in fashion, her academic field, which she's too close to for that degree of objectivity. In dicussing whether fetish-inspired fashions empower or degrade women (a discussion wisely complicated with reader-response and intentionalist critiques), she doesn't realize the question she's begging: Why are fetish fashions almost exclusively produced for and worn by women? You could argue that fetishism is almost exclusively male activity projected onto female items. But many fetishists are just as satisfied wearing the fetish items themselves. And as Steele distinguishes, fashion is about "normal" fetishizing, not fetishism, and works by far looser rules. All she really says to this question is that men's fashions are "slower to develop" and suggests a psychoanalytic theory (interesting, though far from convincing) about why women like dressing up more than men do. I think the obvious answer she misses is that whether women feel empowered or degraded, the very reason they're allowed (or required) to dress up at all is because they have a subservient social position to men. When men are required to dress up, it's a relatively simple and standardized uniforming, whereas women are required to puff up a la a court jester or similar colorful figure of subservient/entertainment social standing. Whatever a women chooses to wear, there's no choice about dressing up, and that's where real power lies.

These lacunae aside, it's an honest, thoughtful and meaningful examination of the unspoken--and often misunderstood--meanings lurking within our clothes, and a timely, necessary study of what's going on in the 20th century sexual mind.

Also wanted to add that today's radical forms of bodybuilding should be considered as body modification in the corseting/tattooing/piercing vein. It's been a rapid movement from Schwarzenegger's Greco-Roman classical perfection to today's insanely bulging, wildly exaggerated look.--J.Ruch

The book is complete with fetish photos, and describes the history and evoltion of the fetish well. Steele, describes one fetish party that she has attended and makes assumptions about fetishes, however i find it difficult to fully accept her conclusions due to her limited exposure. She does not accuratly address the role of fetishism in the gay and lesbian and bisexual community, but rather sticks to trannies and crossdressers. Futhermore, much of the evidence that she uses to explain fetishes is based on biological sex and gender roles. Both of which i would argue are downplayed among those who are open minded enough to participate in fetish culture.

This book is very well written and hard to put down. The book is well edited and well sectioned to keep you entertained and statisfied. It great book for someone who wants a brief and PG 13 explaination of fetishism-- for someone who knows little about the history of fetishims--or for your slightly kinky friend. Please keep in mind that Steele looks at fetishes from a fashion perspective--if you are looking for a more indept explaination of fetish culture you wil left, without it