Increasingly, I believe that there is really nothing much politically interesting in sexual object-choice. Like, being into leather isn't more or less radical/capitalist/reactionary/whatever than being into pool toys, or blondes, or men.¹
This is sort of prompted by my reading of some nonfiction journalistic sex-writing recently (Federova's Second Skin at the moment) which seems very invested in the radical potential of certain kinds of sex-object. For Fedorova, commodity fetishes (latex, leather, etc) are supposed to be a way that the individual de-alienates their relationship to the commodity form.
This is appealing: Suppose I am into leather, and I pay close attention to the creases, the stitching, the subtle shine, the weathering, and other intimate physical features of a pair of leather boots; this seems to bring me closer to the object in itself—I am penetrating its aura; I am de-familiarizing the commodity, making it novel again.
There are two obvious problems with this. First, it misunderstands where in the chain of production alienation comes about. It kind of produces a sort of demand-side Marxism, where alienation is about the consumer's relationship to the commodity. De-mystifying the commodity won't bring me closer to the raw material! It should bring my gaze, in fact, away from the object "itself" and towards the conditions of its production.
Second, this perspective assumes that sexual commodity fetishism has really much to do with the material at all. There is nothing about leather that makes it inherently fit for sexualization. It is a pleasant accident of history that leather became a popular fetish-object.² Federova (who I am just treating as a representative of this line of argument, perhaps unfairly) ends up producing a line of argument which sounds unfortunately much like Freud's argument about Fetishism. The one where he suggests that all the perverts he knows in Vienna are into heavy furs because the fur is a substitute for pubic hair. I don't think even Freud really bought into this one.
¹I would note, though, that there might be a way that fetishism does provide a possible line-of-flight away from hegemonic sexuality. But it doesn't guarantee that. And I'd suggest that this has more to do with the relationship between self and object-choice than in any intrinsic features of that object-choice.
²Consider, reader, the world in which Tom of Finland drew a bunch of burly men in heavy wool coats.
areudirty
blakekathryn
andulkaphoto
origamiaround
vaporwave
kaledo-art
turnnoffyourmind
kianamaiart
