Clinical Psychotherapist and couples counselor Shai Spitzen doesn’t mince words when addressing the anxieties of those with sexual fetishes. "Many people fear they won’t find partners—not just because fetishes might be statistically rare, but because they dread rejection in relationships."
His approach is pragmatic: "I’d ask them: If you didn’t have this fetish, what would stop you from relationships? Sometimes they say nothing. Sometimes they discover other barriers." He also challenges them to confront uncomfortable truths: "Would you accept unsatisfying sex? Or wait for someone open-minded and compatible?"
Spitzen clarifies the clinical landscape with precision. A fetish means "significant, heightened and consistent sexual arousal from objects or body parts not typically sexualized."
While the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) still labels it a paraphilia, he notes a crucial shift: "It’s no longer automatically a disorder. Definitions changed."
He recounts darker history—how this classification once brought legal consequences or institutional stigma. Israel’s pivot to the ICD-11 matters deeply: "Fetishism was removed from the list entirely. Now we focus on consent, distress and harm—not the attraction itself."
What are some common fetishes? "Feet dominate—shoes, bare feet, socks. Then fabrics: leather, lace, latex." But Spitzen’s eyes light up discussing extremes. "Two women married objects—the Berlin Wall and Eiffel Tower. Another loved the Empire State Building."
This isn’t fetishism, he clarifies, but object sexuality: "Romantic attachment where the relationship feels mutual." When asked why no one married Jerusalem’s Western Wall, he chuckles: "Maybe it happened secretly!"
Get the Ynetnews app on your smartphone: Google Play: https://bit.ly/4eJ37pE | Apple App Store: https://bit.ly/3ZL7iNv
The 'why' behind desire
The origins behind fetishes fascinate Spitzen. He unpacks theories without oversimplifying:
Biology: "Brain regions for feet and genital pleasure overlap—might explain foot fetishes."
Behavior: "Imprinting, like ducks sexually fixating on boots. Or conditioning—Pavlov’s dogs applied to desire. Quail studies showed birds mating with buttons linked to partner access."
Psychology: "Objects feel safer than people—there's no rejection. Attachment theory suggests neglected kids might prefer predictable objects."
Yet he cautions: "No research ties fetishes to trauma. Humans defy single explanations."
Gender gaps and surprises
"Studies show fetishes affect 2%-25% of men versus 4%-14% of women," Spitzen notes. Why the gap? "Men are more visual, exposed earlier to sexual content, and society permits their exploration." Objectum sexuality, however, flips the script: "Here, women dominate."
Spitzen’s tone hardens discussing therapeutic malpractice. "Many therapists still use outdated frameworks or personal morals. They see fetishes as problems to cure." He contrasts this with modern ethics: "If someone publicly grinds on cars, the issue is consent violation—not the attraction."
Today’s goals are clearer: self-acceptance, community connection ("finding others like you is healing"), and integrating desires consensually. He rejects coercive "broadening your range" approaches: "Why assume their preferences are inadequate?"
For dating, Spitzen is unequivocal: "Discuss fetishes when sexual preferences arise—and have that conversation." His script? Start indirect: "I really love foot massages—is that something you’d explore?" Delaying risks disaster. "The goal isn’t suppression," he concludes. "It’s finding where your desires belong."