Shoe fetishism or shoe retifism

cjveritas · 9th August 2007, 18:06

I've read on the net that the term shoe fetishism is incorrect and that the correct term would been 'shoe retifism'. (cfr. Nicolas Rétif)

Fetishism implies a part of the human body to be object of affection, e.g. foot fetishism, whereas retifism means that something outside of the body, not human and anorganic, is object of affection.

What do you think is the correct terminology for somebody that 'loves' high heels?

Educate me please!

dingpat · 9th August 2007, 18:36

I don't see any issues with calling it a fetish in some cases. It just means they happen to find that more appealing than some other things.

Elegant · 9th August 2007, 19:41

As far as I know, fetishism involves being sexually [and I mean that: not emotionally, sensually etc.- there must be a strictly erotic affliction] excited by non-sexual body parts or inanimate objects. Its strength varies: for some, a fetish makes things a little spicier and more pleasant, others take more time to get excited without a fetish than with it [real or fantasized], and there are some people who just can't get turned on without a fetish. Fetishism can be a pathology or not, it depends on how people involved view it. If someone can't get turned on without something, but is OK with it [i.e. doesn't see it as a problem] and their S/O accepts an erotic lifestyle involving a fetish- then it's IMHO all right, despite limited capability. On the other hand, if someone is aroused by something [np. leather], but sees themself as some kind of pervert etc. because of that and doesn't accept their kink, then it may be a problem- even if a person doesn't have limited sexual capability.

And retifism is a kind of fetishism that involves shoes/ boots. Some people include leather in its definition, too.

shrimper · 10th August 2007, 00:36

Altocalciphilia
The allure of high heels (altocalciphilia) for some people may be in the apparent limitation of movement they cause. This attraction may have its origins from our primal preditorial instinct to seek out the lame and weakened. In any event high heeled shoes are very much part of the bondage ritual (Rossi,1997). The effects on posture when wearing high heels has been studied in detail and elevated shoes do appear to change the bodyÕs distribution of mass. The spine curves causing the breasts to jut forward, and buttocks to hike up and move backwards. Hence the legs are made to look longer and the calves and ankles appear shapelier as the arches heave from the shoes to capture a high arched appearance. Psychologist Lloyd-Elliott in his book, The Secrets of Attraction, described the length of the leg as a strong arousal signal. Thus the weakened gait widens the division of power between the genders. Men may be attracted because they feel superior or a driving need to protect the vulnerable. Sadomasochists maybe attracted to the perceived pain associated with wearing high-heeled shoes. High heels are also thought to place the female pelvis in a precoital position. Wether or not this is true, the idea by itself, may cause arousal.

This term and definition comes from an interesting site. It is the school of podiatry at Curtin University. While it comes close to describing my relationship to shoes the heavy psychological stuff mostly doesn't apply.

I just know I LOVE shoes and don't know or care why.

DandyDude · 10th August 2007, 00:43

While I agree about the leg lengthening effect, I also love ballerinas and other dancers, I don't think this has to do with male heel wearing,.

cjveritas · 12th August 2007, 18:21

Well thanks for the extensive replies!

I can tell you have given these concepts quite a bit of thought.

Another thing I now realize is that high heels 'passions' stretch from extreme deviant sexual behaviour to a passive (in some cases latent) interest.

I guess the most important thing is to be OK with it.

'Dandydude' made a very interesting remark. I like ballerina's (a knew fashion fad in these last years) too. Especially the elegant desing or the ones with floral prints.

I guess I 'appreciate' the fragile aspect of 'female' footwear, from flats to high heels. Strange though that I don't like most shoe designs with heel heights between flats and 3 inches.

new_look · 13th August 2007, 01:15

i have to say i hate it when my liking for heels is referred to as a fetish.

fetish spells out to many a strong sexual almost perverted appeal towards an object (or part of the body). You mention the word fetish to the average joe and they associate it with unusual behaviour and a liking in respect of something different but in a sick sort of way.

Yes us wearing heels is an unusual different sort of thing but fetish isnt the word id describe it with. it creates the wrong impression. fashion and spice of life and freedom and enjoyment of heels is along the right lines.

just because u like something doesnt make it a fetish. I like to wear a gold chain and sometimes an earing. wearing an earing or a chain doesnt mean i have a fetish for jewllery.

crotchboots-m · 13th August 2007, 11:22

its no big deal,its just a way for those that are not "afflicted" with the disease of getting a handle on it.

chris100575 · 13th August 2007, 20:38

IIRC sexual arousal from shoes / leather / feet / ear lobes whatever is only clinically defined as a fetish when it interferes with your ability to be sexually satisfied without it.

For example, if I'm turned on by my girlfriend wearing high heels but also enjoy sex with her when she doesn't wear them it doesn't count as a fetish. However in general use the term fetish is used to describe any sexual attraction to something perceived as being outside normal vanilla erogenous zones.

According to The Encyclopedia of Unusal Sex Practices altocalciphilia is a fetish specfically for high heels, wheres retifism is a fetish for footwear whether high heeled or not.

So, in answer to the first post it really depends on your level of attraction. If heels are a turn on for you, then you may or may not be a high heel fetishist depending on which definition you want to use or how obsessed with heels you are. If it's specifically high heels then you could term yourself an altocalciphiliac, or a retifist if your taste in footwear is more general. Then again you could either just love heels in a non-sexual way, or think they look sexy when your GF wears them, then you're probably not a fetishist at all!

As you can tell, it's all down to interpretation and whichever one you feel most comfortable with.

Chris

cjveritas · 14th August 2007, 18:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris100575

According to The Encyclopedia of Unusal Sex Practices altocalciphilia is a fetish specfically for high heels, wheres retifism is a fetish for footwear whether high heeled or not.

Chris

By this definition "shoe retifism" would be the 'diagnose' in my case for 'footwear considered feminine in today's modern society'. 'Any footwear' would not apply for me. Footwear, as seen by society, for men do nothing for me. I don't feel that 'extra' for my everyday footwear, 'it's just footwear'.

Personally I find this description vague. Not taking in account all the different definitions of fetish or retifism, I find 'shoe fetish' a more stigmatizing term for explicit sexual deviance whereas 'shoe retifism' seems, to me at least, a more general term for an exceptional interest in a 'non-human' object or device.

The reason I started this thread was also to find a more 'suitable' label for my 'hobbies'. I have two of them: Hifi and high heels.
I have often read in magazines and books that people that have a Hifi-crush (amplifiers/DVD/loudspeakers - other tech-stuff) are referred to as Hifi-fetishists.

As a fellow 'Hifi-fetishist' I find the term fetish inappropriate for this, certainly when I think of what the term fetish generally refers to: PVC/Leather and other 'kinkyness'.

Since I feel the same way about high heels or more generally feminine footwear, as I do about Hifi and tech-stuff (PC!). I also find the term fetish inappropriate for high heels or a femine 'footwear-crush'.

Behind this I have a bit of an entire logic of my own. For me feminine shoes, and more for high heels, are accesories that make the wearer (whether boy or girl) more elegant and noble. This not only on the outside but also on in the wearer's mind.
I'm a very old-fashioned guy when it comes to girls. I still believe in the sweet girl rather than the cool selfrightious bitch, the two extremes. For me this means the picture has to fit. A woman who appears to be nice/friendly/goodlooking and caring that wears high heels to me looks even more elegant. The opposite kind of woman wearing high heels makes dislike/hate her even more so much that I even dislike the shoes she wearing eventhough they are very nice shoes. This 'cinderella-syndrome' is of course entirely based on appearances. You could actually call me a 'cinderella-man': "The right shoe for the right princess!". I could be wrong half or more of the time. I could be deadwrong about someone's character eventhough she is goodlooking and wearing beautiful high heels. In other words an illusion of the mind, in this case mine. Romance and physical elegance go hand in hand for me, when one is missing the picture is wrong. This doesn't mean I'm narrowminded about people I meet as I'm aware that it is an illusion.

As I am old-fashioned guy this all may seem a bit 'rosy', naive or childish. It is however the origin of my 'infatuation' with high heels, in a nutshell: the elegant ideal high heels create eventhough it's an illusion of the mind (yet a beautiful one). (a bit of an answer to a question like: "Why do you like the colour blue?")

I do wonder how many of you guys feel the same way about it?