FETISH

Clothed in power. (Private collection)

 FETISH
Fashion,
Sex and
Power
Valerie Steele
NEW YORK       OXFORD        OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
  
 
Oxford University Press
Oxford New York
Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota Bombay Buenos Aires
Calcutta Cape Town Dar es Salaam Delhi Florence
Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madras Madrid
Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi Paris Singapore Taipei
Tokyo Toronto
and associated companies in
Berlin Ibadan
Copyright © 1996 by Valerie Steele
First published by Oxford University Press, Inc., 1996
First issued as an Oxford University Press paperback, 1997
Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press

All rights reserved. No part of this publication

may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted,
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior
permission of Oxford University Press.

The author has made every e ort to obtain permission from

copyright holders to reprint or reproduce material for this book.
In some cases the copyright holders and/or
their whereabouts were unknown.
 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Steele, Valerie.
Fetish : fashion, sex and power / Valerie Steele,
p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN: 978–0-19-511579-6
1. Costume—Europe—History. 2. Fashion—History. 3. Fashion—
Psychological aspects. 4. Fetishism (Sexual behavior)
5. Sex symbolism. 6. Erotica. I. Title.
GT511.S84 1996
306.77–dc20 95–17539
 Acknowledgments
I am indebted to many institutions and individuals for visual
material: Archive Photos (Michael Schulman); Peter Ashworth; Chris
Bell; The Bettman Photo Archives (Joyceline Clapp); The Bodleian
Library at Oxford University; Leigh Bowery and Fergus Greer; The
British Library (Naresh S. Kaul); Peter Czernich of O: Fashion, Fetish,
Fantasies; Kevin Davies; Peter Farrer; Films de Losange; The Human
Sexuality Collection at Cornell University Library (Brenda J. Mar-
ston); Travis Hutchison; Impact Visuals and Robert Fox; The Kinsey
Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction (Jim Crump,
Margaret Harter, and June Reinisch); Eric Kroll; Grace Lau; Jerry
Lee of Centurian/Spartacus Publications (13331 Garden Grove
Blvd., Suite G, Garden Grove, Calif. 92643); Andy Levin; Peter
Lindburgh; Roxanne Lowit; Movie Star News and Paula Klaw; Angela
Murray of Murray & Vern; Fakir Musafar of Body Play (P.O. Box
2575, Menlo Park, Calif. 94026–2575); Musée International de la
Chaussure, Romans, France (Marie-Josèphe Bossan); Helmut
Newton and French Vogue; Camille Norment; Patrice Stable; The
Tom of Finland Foundation (P.O. Box 26658, Los Angeles, Calif.
90026) and Vince Gaither; Maria Chandoha Valentino; Trevor
Watson; Vivienne Westwood; and Tim Woodward of Skin Two (23
Grand Union Centre, Kensal Road, London W10 5AX). Every e ort
has been made to obtain permission for use of all illustrations and
photographs. If insu cient credit has been given, please contact the
author via the publisher for credit in future editions.
 Special thanks to Pearl, Bob and Cathie J., Lauren, Miss R. of the
Torture Garden, The Baroness Varcra, Marie Constance of Dressing
for Pleasure, Randall of the Caped Crusadist, the sta of Sin,
Brandon of The Pleasure Elite, the Eulenspiegel Society, the London
Life League, and Dianne Kendall. Thanks also to Halla Belo ,
Katherine Betts, Anne Brogden, Marion DeBeaupré, Fred Dennis,
Monica Elias, John Grant, Susan Kaiser, Robert Kaufmann, Dorothy
Ko, Désirée Koslin, Nancy Lane, Thomas LeBien, Richard Martin,
Lorraine Mead, Jimmy Newcomer, Isabelle Picard of Thierry
Mugler, Ailene Ribiero, The Seminar on the History of Psychiatry
and Behavioral Sciences at The New York Hospital/Cornell Medical
Center, Dennita Sewell, Jody Shields, Joy Steele, June Swann, Efrat
Tseelon, Michel Voyski, and Rosemary Wellner. Many thanks to
Peter Ferrar for giving me access to his excellent private research
collection on corsetry and related subjects, and for sharing his
expert knowledge with me. I am deeply grateful to Frank Liberto
and Mark Micale for reading the manuscript. Most of all, thanks to
my students and to my husband.
 Contents
Introduction: In the Torture Garden
Fetishism as Cultural Discourse
1. What Is Fetishism?
Fetishizing Is the Norm for Males
The Phallic Woman
Not Just the Mother’s Penis
The Invention of Fetishism
The Evolution of Fetishism
Neosexualities and Normopaths
2. Fashion and Fetishism
Kinky Boots and Catsuits
Terrorist Chic
More S Than M
Trickle-Down Perversion,
The Sex Appeal of the Commodity
3. The Corset
The Votaries of Tight-Lacing Discipline
and Punish, The French Mistress Men in
Corsets, Unfashionable Fetishism Tight Lacing
Today Corsets in Vogue
4. Shoes
The 3-Inch Golden Lotus, An Exaggerated
Eroticism, The Cult of the High Heel The
Shoe as Weapon—and as Wound, Booted
Master, Shoes and Sex Foot Worship
5. Underwear
It Is the Veiled, Secret Part
From Pants to Panties
Underwear Bandits and No-Panty Cafes
Panty Raid
Men’s Underwear
Black Stockings and Pointed Bras
Freudian Slip
6. Second Skin
Venus in Furs
The Fascination of Satin
The Rubber Devotee
Leathersex,
Tattooing and Piercing
7. Fashion, Fetish, Fantasy
Who Wields the Whip?
A Fetish Is a Stoiy Masquerading as an Object
Clothed in Power
Of Maids and Men
The Cult of the Uniform
Where Cock Is King Go for the Codpiece
Raising Fetishism to New Heights of Fashion
Notes
Selected Bibliography
Index
FETISH
Club scene, Amsterdam, 1991. (Copyright © Grace Lau)
 Introduction In the Torture Garden
“How can you write about fetishism if you aren’t into it?” asked the
tight-laced dominatrix. It was fetish night at the Torture Garden, a
London SM club, and several hundred enthusiasts roamed over four
oors in a variety of fetish costumes, ranging from full-body rubber
suits to black leather bustiers and high heels. One woman wore only
a tiny plastic cache-sexe and a length of rope that wrapped around
her body and snaked up to tie her hair like Pebbles Flintstone. A
man strolled past, naked except for nipple and cock rings. Most
people, however, were very much dressed.
Fashion was a big part of the London fetish scene, and I had to
get special permission to attend the party in ordinary clothes.
Earlier that day, I had telephoned Miss R., a hostess at the club, and
explained that I was traveling with only a small suitcase but very
much wanted to attend the party. She admitted that it would be a
shame to have to spend a lot of money on a fetish costume. “You
could borrow a corset from Pearl,” she suggested hopefully,
mentioning the famous male tight-lacer whom I had interviewed in
New York. Miss R. called back a bit later with another concern:
“Have you ever been to a place like this, dear? Are you sure it won’t
be too much for you? Maybe you ought to ask Pearl to come with
you.” In the end, Pearl did accompany me, and Miss R. left her own
copy of my rst book, Fashion and Eroticism, with the receptionist at
the Torture Garden to let her know that I should be admitted
despite my lack of appropriate attire. My literary ticket to enter the
club was also the reason I was there in the rst place.
 I am a cultural historian specializing in fashion, and the book
you are now reading is part of an ongoing project on the
relationship between clothing and sexuality. I am interested in
exploring fashion as a symbolic system linked to the expression of
sexuality—both sexual behavior (including erotic attraction) and
gender identity. At the Torture Garden, in addition to the usual club
xtures, such as a bar and dance oor, were two rows of boutiques
selling fetish shoes, piercing jewelry, and clothing items made of
leather, rubber, and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). I chatted with
habitues about the appeal of items like high heels and the sources
for fetish fashion. Two American transvestites (one a former football
player) gave me the addresses of important fetish fashion emporia in
Europe and America that they frequented with their girlfriends.
I am not the only outsider interested in fetish fashions.
Journalists have begun making forays, like my own, into the fetish
underground. Alice Thomson of the Times squeezed into a corset to
attend the 1993 Corset Ball at The Vox in London. In 1994, the
Guardianes Cynthia Rose covered an evening at Skin Two, where
one person recalled that when the club rst opened in 1983, “there
were lots of old men hauling fat women by dog collars. Real hard-
core fetishists. Not many girls like me, interested in the look as
fashion.”1
For fantastic as the costumes at the Torture Garden seemed, on
closer inspection they bore a recognizable resemblance to
contemporary fashion. Fashion quite often exhibits elements of
fantasy, being “inspired” by such themes as ethnic dress, period
costume, and military uniforms. Sexual themes, in particular, have
become increasingly noticeable. Corsets, bizarre shoes and boots,
leather and rubber, and underwear as outerwear (to say nothing of
tattoos and body-piercing) have become almost as common on
catwalks as in fetish clubs. The look probably appeals for di erent
reasons to hard-core fetishists and dedicated followers of fashion.
Nevertheless, fashion designers as diverse and important as
Azzedine Alaia, Dolce & Gabbana, John Galliano, Jean-Paul
Gaultier, Thierry Mugler, John Richmond, Anna Sui, Gianni Versace,
and Vivienne Westwood frequently copy “the style, if not the spirit,
of fetishism.”2
A word about terminology: After the publication of Fashion and
Eroticism, in which I described certain nineteenth-century gures as
corset and tight-lacing “fetishists,” one man wrote to me to say, “We
prefer to be called enthusiasts.” This term, however, is rather vague,
and euphemisms cannot gloss over the fact that the entire subject is
controversial. Other enthusiasts, moreover, proudly use the term
fetishist, which has the advantage of immediate recognition value.
Nevertheless, words such as fetishism need to be placed within
mental quotation marks, since this medicalizing language inevitably
carries more or less pejorative connotarions. As a friend of mine put
it, “I can’t accept ‘fetishism’ because I would risk being called a
fetishist myself—and I hate the imputation... of sexual perversity.”
To understand contemporary fashion, it is crucial to explore
fetishism. But this turned out to be more di cult than I had
anticipated. There is an enormous literature on fetishism,
comprising di erent discourses and genres, each with a complex
history.
Fetishism as Cultural Discourse
The word fetish has a dual meaning, denoting a magic charm and
also “a fabrication, an artifact, a labour of appearances and signs.”3
The original discourse on fetishism was religious and
anthropological. Missionary tracts like Fetichism and Fetich
Worshippers denounced the “barbarous” religions of people who
worshipped “idols of wood or clay.”4 By the early nineteenth
century, the term fetish had been extended to refer to anything that
was irrationally worshipped. Then there evolved a second, Marxist
interpretation. Karl Marx coined the phrase “commodity fetishism,”
analyzing the concept in terms of false consciousness and alienation
that nds spurious grati cation through the consumption of
consumer objects. Lacking class consciousness, wrote Marx, the
workers who produce objects attribute to them a “secret” value,
which gives each consumer item the quality of a “social
hieroglyphic” that needs to be decoded.5
Alfred Binet was the rst to use the word fetishism in something
like the modern, psychological sense in his essay “Le Fétichisme
dans l’amour,” published in the Revue philosophique in 1887. The
concept of erotic fetishism was then adopted by others studying
sexual deviations, such as Richard von Kra t-Ebing, who was
himself coining terms such as sadism (named after the Marquis de
Sade) and masochism (after Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, author of
the classic fetishistic novel, Venus in Furs, who was very annoyed to
nd himself in a textbook on psychopathic sex).
As the word fetishism acquired an expanding repertoire of
meanings, the separate discourses began to intersect. Fetishism is
not only “about” sexuality; it is also very much about power and
perception. The lm scholar Linda Williams observes that in
pornographic movies the “cum shot” (or money shot) is fe-tishized.6
“The extreme anti-porn argument turns pornography into a fetish,
demonizing it as the primal cause of all male violence and all
women’s subjection,” writes Anne McClintock of Columbia
University. “Fetishizing pornography projects onto it a spurious
power.”7
The concept of fetishism has recently assumed a growing
importance in critical thinking about the cultural construction of
sexuality. Works such as Fetishism as Cultural Discourse and
Feminizing the Fetish complement or critique the voluminous clinical
literature on fetishism as a sexual “perversion.” Neo-Marxists
analyze “commodity fetishism,” feminist scholars explore the
contested issue of “female fetishism,” and art theorists stress the
subversive role of fetishism in contemporary art, arguing that a
fetish can be “any article that shocks our sensibilities.”8
It might seem presumptuous to propose another study of such a
heavily theorized subject. (“How can you write about fetishism
when it has already been studied so much?” one professor asked
me.) Yet, to date, no scholar with an in-depth knowledge of fashion
history has studied the actual clothing fetishes themselves.
Enthusiasts lavish attention on the minute particulars of their
chosen fetish object. But most scholars have lumped together the
many “objects of special devotion,” as though it made no di erence
whether an individual chose high-heeled pumps or combat boots, a
silk petticoat or a leather jacket.
Nor has there been a serious exploration of the historical
relationship between fashion and fetishism, an approach that
promises to provide important insight into both the nature of
fetishism and the erotic appeal of fashion. For just as the cultural
interpretation of fetishism has evolved in conjunction with changing
attitudes toward sexual expression and “deviance,” so also has our
understanding of “perverse” erotic styles. Moreover, there have been
both changes and continuities in the choice of fetish fashions and
fabrics. Corsets have long since disappeared from mainstream
fashion, but they retain an important role in fetishism—and have
reemerged in avant-garde fashion. Women’s underwear and high-
heeled shoes have long been among the most popular garments
chosen as fetishes, but there is also evidence that uniforms, boots,
and even Levis appeal to both male and female subjects. The
materials that attract fetishists have also evolved over time, with
silk and fur tending to be eclipsed by leather and rubber.
Because the subject itself is so full of interest, I have tried not to
become overly entangled in theoretical debates. Instead, I have
relied heavily on what fetishists themselves have written about their
enthusiasms for items such as corsets, shoes, and underwear.
Pornography has been a major source of information about the
appeal of fetish objects. The non-erotic popular discourse on
fetishism is also ourishing—and not only in fashion magazines. An
article in Self warned female readers that “kinkiness may be more
common than you think.” The author characterized fetishism as “an
avoidance of emotional intimacy” and a way that some men
“channel frightening or destructive impulses.”9 An article in the
Ladies’ Home Journal quoted the unhappy wives of fetishists.
“Outside the bedroom, David is the man every woman wants to
marry,” said one woman. “But he won’t make love to me unless I
wear my high heels to bed.”10
Peformance artist Leigh Bowery, London, 1992. (Photograph by Fergus
Greer; Leigh Bowery)
In his memoir, My Life in Court, the famous trial lawyer Louis
Nizer recounted how foot fetishism played a role in a divorce case.
He represented the wife, who testi ed, weeping, how her husband
would put his head under the covers and go on “what he called a
treasure hunt,” which meant kissing her feet, putting them in his
mouth, and sucking on her toes.11 More recently, Chuck Jones, the
publicist for actress Maria Maples, was arrested for stealing about
fty pairs of her shoes. “As you can see, I have a problem,” Jones
allegedly told the police. The press treated the incident as a joke:
“What a Heel! Sole suspect nabbed in Maria shoe thefts.”12 The
Manhattan district attorney’s o ce initially suggested that he plead
guilty to a misdemeanor, with no jail time, but he was eventually
indicted on burglary charges.13 “It’s not a perversion, not a foot
fetish,” Jones told a reporter for Vanity Fair.14 But he admitted
having a “sexual relationship” with Maria Maples’s shoes.15
In studying fetishism, I found myself poised between discourses:
the postmodern, the politicized, the psychiatric, the popular, and
the pornographic. The di erent discourses often overlapped, of
course. Some of the works that purported to be serious medical case
histories or journalistic exposes read more like pornography. And
some of the pornography read like advertising copy for a weird
fashion magazine: A story in High Heels magazine, for example,
purported to recount the “Diary of a High Heel Model”:
“This may startle you, at rst,” explained the photographer.
“My client wants to issue a catalog of Fall clothes—namely
wasp waist gowns, skin tight negligee, leather brassieres—
you know, leather is the current rage and designers are
outdoing themselves for ideas in new leather garments.”16
The organization of this book is designed to focus on the
relationship between fetishism and fashion. In the rst chapter, I
have juxtaposed the di erent voices emerging from the various
discourses on fetishism. The second chapter explores why fashion
has become increasingly fetishistic. In the next four chapters, I
analyze individual clothing fetishes: the corset, shoes and boots,
underwear, and material fetishes such as leather. Finally, in the last
and most important chapter, I examine the relationship among
fashion, fetish, and fantasy through an exploration of the clothing
“looks” that have been most important both within the fetishist
subculture and in the world of fashion.
Fetishism evokes images of “kinky” sex, involving an abnormal
attraction to items of clothing such as high-heeled shoes and tightly
laced corsets, or body parts like feet and hair. Although obviously
sensational, it would seem to be of marginal importance—except, of
course, to individual fetishists. But the stereotype of fetishism as a
“picturesque” sexual deviation is too simplistic. Leather, rubber,
“cruel shoes,” tattoos, and body-piercing—all the paraphernalia of
fetishism have been increasingly incorporated into mainstream
fashion. The popular interest in subcultural style is not new, but
there has recently been a qualitative change in the reception of
sartorial sexuality. Today sexual “perversity” sells everything from
lms and fashions to chocolates and leather briefcases. In answer to
the dominatrix at the Torture Garden, I would say that anyone who
wears clothes, listens to music, goes to the movies, or is on the
Internet might want to know more about fetishism. Certainly,
anyone who is “into” fashion has to address the issue.
Fetish fashion, ca. 1944. (Kinsey Institute)
 one
What Is Fetishism?
The nineteenth-century sexologist Richard von Kra t-Ebing de ned
fetishism as “The Association of Lust with the Idea of Certain
Portions of the Female Person, or with Certain Articles of Female
Attire.”1 Many men, of course, are sexually attracted to clothing
items such as high-heeled shoes and silky panties, or prefer sexual
partners with a particular physical characteristic, such as large
breasts or long, red hair. Are they all fetishists? The early sexologists
tended to think so.
“We are all more or less fetishists,” declared Dr. Emile Laurent in
1905. 2 “Normal love,” agreed Alfred Binet, is the result of a
“complicated fetishism.” Pathology begins only “at the moment
where the love of a detail becomes preponderant.”3 According to
Kra t-Ebing, in pathological erotic fetishism “the fetish itself (rather
than the person associated with it) becomes the exclusive object of
sexual desire,” while “instead of coitus, strange manipulations of the
fetish” become the sexual aim. 4
“Is the pathological state merely a quantitative modi cation of
the normal state?”5 Yes and no. Fetishism probably needs to be
conceptualized along a continuum of intensities:
Level 1: A slight preference exists for certain kinds of sex partners,
sexual stimuli or sexual activity. The term “fetish” should not be
used at this level.
Level 2: A strong preference exists.... (Lowest intensity of
fetishism.)
 Level 3: Speci c stimuli are necessary for sexual arousal and sexual
performance. (Moderate intensity of fetishism.)
Level 4: Speci c stimuli take the place of a sex partner. (High level
fetishism.) 6
Fetishizing Is the Norm for Males
After studying erotic fantasies and sexual behavior for many years,
the psychiatrist Robert Stoller concluded that “fetishizing is the norm
for males, not for females”7 This is not to say that women are
uninterested in body parts or sexy clothes. But they do not seem to
“lust” after them in the same way men do. (This is an important
issue if we are to explore the appeal for women of clothes that men
treat as fetishes.)
Men often fetishize body parts and garments, and might well
describe themselves as “leg men,” “breast men,” or “ass men.” A leg
man is not a true fetishist, however, “unless he prefers to climax on
his partner’s legs rather than between them.”8 Although fetishism
narrowly de ned appears to be distinctly a minority practice, a
degree of fetishism appears to be extremely common among men—
normative, in other words, if not “normal.” There exist a number of
specialized sex magazines with titles like High Heels, D-Cup, and
Erotic Lingerie. Yet only a small percentage of pornography is
“speci cally written for any of the various fetishes.”9 Only “an
extremely small audience depends on these speci c images for
sexual arousal.” But images of “women wearing high heels and
lingerie [are] as prevalent as images of vaginal intercourse,
suggesting that they have become normative sexual imagery.”10
 In the course of researching this book, I have looked at a lot of
pornography and have come to the conclusion that it is amazing
what turns people on: everything from Amputee Times to Wanda
Whips Wall Street. Body parts are more likely to be fetishized than
clothing items per se. Typical pornographic titles include Big
Bazooms, Ten-Inch Tools, Up Her Ass, Up My Ass, and This Butt’s for
You. Body types and races are also fetishized: Fat Fucks, Black and
White Fetish Exchange, and Oriental Fetishes. But breast fetishism has
its counterpart in a fetishism devoted to Huge Bras, and an emphasis
on the genitals with Panty Passions.
Most pornography deals with genital intercourse (straight or
gay), like A Cock Between Friends and A Date with Pussy. Clothing
references occur occasionally with titles like Tight Rubber, Lisa’s
Rubber Seduction, Hard Leather, Lust for Leather, Leather Licking Slut,
High-Heeled Sluts, Flesh and Lace, and Skirts Up, Pants Down. There
are noticeably more references to clothing fetishism when the
pornography involves transvestism and/or sadomasochism,
indicating that fetishism frequently overlaps with these sexual
variants. Transvestite pornography is fairly common and includes
such titles as Macho Man in Heels, Pretty Panty Marine, and Barry’s
New Bra.
Clothing fetishes are frequently combined to form costumes,
which are clearly associated with particular sexual fantasies.
Uniforms are very important: Our Boys in Uniform, Sluts in Uniform,
and Naughty Nurses are representative titles that reveal how
fetishism involves erotic scenarios. Black Leather Biker and Boots and
Saddles are typical of an enormous genre devoted to leathersex.
Domina in Leather, Leather Master, and Leather Mistress indicate how
leather is associated with power. By contrast, Harem Girls in Bondage
and Maid to Be Spanked focus on submissive dressing. 11
Readers may feel that some material in this book is so grotesque
and bizarre as to defy comprehension, except by reference to
extreme psychopathology. Yet bizarre elements exist in the erotic
imagination of many people. In his brilliant study Observing the
Erotic Imagination, Robert Stoller compared one of the most extreme
cases discussed by Kra t-Ebing with dozens of advertisements from
pornographic magazines:

Fetishizing is the norm for males.

SHITEATING! CATFIGHTS! TORTURE! AMPUTATION! DISFIGURED GIRLS!

PIERCED PENISES AND PANTY LOVERS.12

My own research into clothing fetishism supports Stoller’s idea that
there exists “a whole race of erotic minifetishists: most males of
most cultures.”13
Neither “pathological” fetishism nor “normal” fetishizing is
typical of women. As Louise Kaplan notes, “Except for sexual
masochism where the ratio of cases is approximately twenty males
to one female, less than one percent of the cases cited as sexual
perversions have been of females” People often deny that this is true;
they can think of exceptions. Or they insist that as women become
more sexually “liberated,” they will achieve parity with men.
Sometimes, women congratulate themselves that only men are
“perverts.” There is a certain naïveté in all three responses. “A more
carefully considered response . . . is that males are androgen-
testosterone driven... whereas females... are less inclined toward
perverse acting out,” writes Kaplan, although she believes that this
explanation gives too much weight to biological factors. 14
Meanwhile, psychiatrists “cast about for female fetishists,
transvestites, sadomasochists, [and] exhibitionists,” ignoring the
possibility that women have perversions of their own. “The male
perversions use some manifest form of kinky sex... to keep the devils
at bay.” By contrast, Kaplan argues, “sexual behaviors per se, kinky
or otherwise, are not the key to female perversions.”15
Certainly, I found that all the men (straight and gay, old and
young) to whom I mentioned the subject of my book responded with
enthusiasm. In contrast, many of the women to whom I spoke felt
that the subject was somewhat “disgusting” or “depressing.” The
exceptions were mostly younger women, often in the arts, with an
interest in pornography.
The Phallic Woman
Freud argued that “the fetish is a substitute for the woman’s (the
mother’s) penis that the little boy once believed in and... does not
want to give up.... [F]or if a woman has been castrated, then his
own possession of a penis was in danger.”16 This theory seems
“bizarre and unconvincing” to many people and requires some
explanation. 17 There is ample evidence, however, that little boys
and girls frequently go through a phase of believing that at least
some females (such as their mothers) have a penis. Kaplan describes
fetishism more vividly, and probably to many modern readers more
convincingly, than Freud, but she follows his basic outline:
The little boy whose childhood curiosity, fantasies,
anxieties, and wishes lead him to endow his mother with a
substitute penis is constructing only a temporary, elusive
fantasy... that the adult fetishist will concretize into a shoe
or fur piece.... As Freud was the rst to insist, the
extravagant sexual theories of little boys may be outgrown
and forgotten but they are never entirely given up. They are
repressed... but persist as unconscious fantasies that are
ready to return... whenever there is a serious threat,
imagined or actual, to a man’s hard-earned masculinity. 18
Some of my students asked why someone did not just tell the
fetishist that women have no penis; of course, he knows that, yet he
may, unconsciously, wish to endow his sexual partner with a
substitute penis.
According to Freud, the only way the adult fetishist can
surmount his “aversion... to the real female genitals” is by
“endowing women with the characteristic which makes them
tolerable sexual objects.”19 The fetish object thus functions as “a
token of triumph over the threat of castration and a protection
against it.”20Kaplan again describes the classic scenario: “The adult
fetishist cannot introduce his penis into that temple of doom called
a vagina without a fetish to ease the way.”21 To become sexually
aroused, he needs an inanimate object, such as a leather boot or a
black corset, as a phallic substitute. His sexual partner may wear it,
or he may wear the fetish himself. Alternatively, Kaplan adds:
The fetish may be a part of the sexual partner’s body... [or
even] the sexual partner herself. For example, just as a high-
heeled leather boot may represent a female with a penis—
the so-called phallic woman—so a woman, with or without
boots, may be endowed with phallic properties by her
fetishistic lover and thus become, for him at least, a fetish.
Some fetishists are able to be sexually aroused only by
policewomen or nuns or nurses, or women they command to
dress up as these personalities. 22
Fetishism involves phallic symbolism, but what is that? “Is the
Washington Monument supposed to be a phallic symbol?” asked one
of my students. Sexual symbolism works di erently from most
symbolism, which is consciously agreed on (a red light means
“stop!”). Not everyone believes that a gun or a high heel can
symbolize the penis. But although phallic symbolism may seem
absurd on the level of common sense, it has some psychic reality.
One day, the four-year-old son of an acquaintance of mine ran into
the living room with an erection and proudly announced, “Look,
Mommy! I’m the Washington Monument!”
 The phallic woman. A slightly di erent version of this photograph
appeared on the cover of Demonia (Copyright © Eric Kroll, 1994)
Castration anxiety is real, too, as indicated by the furor over the
Bobbitt case (when a woman severed her husband’s penis with a
knife). Heinrich Ho mann’s nursery rhyme evokes a deep-rooted
fear:
The great tall tailor always comes
To little boys who suck their thumbs,
And ere they dream what he’s about,
He takes his great sharp scissors out
And cuts their thumbs clean o —and then,
You know, they never grow again. 23
 According to the French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan, the
phallus is not the same as the penis, although we tend to use the
words interchangeably. Whereas the penis is a part of the male body
that may or may not be especially impressive, the phallus is the
eternally erect and massive symbol of power and potency. “If the
penis were a phallic symbol, men would not need... neckties or
medals.”24Neither men nor women “have” the phallus, but they
both want what it signi es. I don’t ask readers to take it on faith
that the phallic woman is “the ubiquitous fantasy in perversions,”25
but after we have looked at a number of fetishes, I think they will be
inclined to agree that such is often the case, although it is not the
entire picture.
There are, however, problems and lacunae with classic Freudian
theory. Fetish objects are not randomly chosen, and Freud
wondered, legitimately, why certain objects (such as shoes, fur, and
underwear) were so often chosen as “substitutes for the absent
female phallus.” He suggested that they were, perhaps, related to
“the last moment in which the woman could be regarded as
phallic.” Thus, “pieces of underclothing, which are so often chosen
as a fetish, crystallize the moment of undressing.” Fur is associated
with the pubic hair, which should have revealed a penis. Shoes
evoke the moment when the little boy glanced up his mother’s skirt.
Recent research, however, has stressed the overdetermined
character of fetish choice.
Freud’s idea that the fetish keeps the fetishist from becoming
homosexual (by compensating for the otherwise terrifying sight of
the female genitals) has been clinically proven to be incorrect: “If
the fetish were none other than a substitute for the mother’s penis,
the subject being unable to bear the sight of the ‘castrated’ female
genitals which arouse in him the fear of castration, this fear should
be non-existent for a man whose sexual partner is another man.”26
But there are homosexual as well as heterosexual fetishists. Some
men also wear the fetish themselves while engaged in auto-erotic
activities.
Not Just the Mother’s Penis
The fetish may well be a substitute for the mother’s penis, but that
is not all it is. The classical Freudian theory is insu cient because it
interprets the castration complex “in a narrow sense, as bearing on
the perception of the female genitals.” But “the very idea of
castration has to be enlarged” to include “what precedes it:
separation anxiety.”27
Castration is a problem of physical and emotional vulnerability
not limited to fears about the genitals. 28
As early as 1953, the child psychologist Phyllis Greenacre
observed:
If we... substitute for “threat of castration” “sight of
mutilated and bleeding body,” I think we may envision what
happens in a certain number of children.... The traumas
which are most signi cant are those which consist of the
witnessing of some particularly mutilating event: a
mutilating death or accident, operation, abortion, or birth at
home. 29
There is evidence that this is especially true if the child personally is
injured.
The psychiatrist Robert Stoller has reported on the case of Mac,
“a child fetishist” who, at the age of two and a half, became sexually
obsessed with his mother’s stockings and pantyhose. Freud’s theory
that fetishism results when the child sees the female genitals around
the same time that he is threatened with castration for masturbating
does not apply in Mac’s case. 30 But Greenacre’s theory about
mutilating trauma does apply: Mac had been severely traumatized
by a delayed and extremely painful circumcision. His relationship
with his adoptive mother was also disturbed.
“We cannot get into Mac’s mind,” writes Stoller. “Still, we can
imagine how her silky smooth, skin-like pantyhose... t his needs to
have her with him, part of him, . . . comforting him more reliably
than she, a full person did.” It oversimpli es, Stoller argues, to make
“the fetish equal mother’s phallus,” or even “the good breast,”
because theorizing prevents us from seeing how “other parts of
mother” like the skin “are also incorporated into the fetish.”31
In a revision of Freudian theory, the French psychoanalyst
Janine Chasseguet-Smirgel identi es the fetish with a fantasied
“anal penis.”32 Describing a patient whose fetish was the prosthesis
of a one-legged male friend, she writes:
If the fetish was nothing but the mother’s phallus, then the
case of the one-legged man and of his prosthesis would be
an actual riddle, for we are confronted here with a two-fold
 paradox: the fetish is linked to a man, and this man is a
castrated one!
As a matter of fact,... in times past, any thriving brothel
featured a “wooden-legged woman.” While the anal penis is
a pre guration of the genital one, a posteriori it is an
imitation of it. 33
By maintaining the illusion that he has no need to envy his father’s
penis, the fetishist asserts that no rivalry exists between them and
therefore no threat of castration. The mother-child unity is
maintained.
Another of Chasseguet-Smirge’s patients felt compelled to put his
wife’s boot in his mouth whenever she was away. “The fetish is the
deposit of all the part objects lost during the subject’s development.”
In fetishes that involve constriction (such as corsetry and shoe
fetishism), “the fetish is both content and container,” putting the
nipple back in the mouth, so to speak, and symbolically revising the
primal scene. 34 The psychological discourse on fetishism has
increasingly been challenged, however.
The Invention of Fetishism
Michel Foucault called sex “the explanation for everything, our
master key.” He also described “fetishism” (in quotation marks) as
“the model perversion,” which “served as the guiding thread for
analyzing all the other deviations.” But he rejected the
psychoanalytic view of sexuality as the core of an individual’s
identity and the motive force of human action, arguing that the
“psychiatrization of perverse pleasure” was the modern equivalent
of the confessional and the latest form of knowledge-power. 35
Inspired by Foucault’s ideas, many scholars have questioned the
traditional view of sexuality as a xed “essence” and rejected both
biological and psychological determinisms. Although the
essentialism/constructivism debate has focused on “homosexuality,”
it also throws into question the validity of other modern sexual
categories like “fetishism.” Foucault’s work on “the repressive
hypothesis” and the rise of scientia sexualis also encouraged inquiry
into the historicity of sexual practices and categories, while his
emphasis on “bodies and pleasures” and his view of the body as the
site for the deployment of discourses has resulted in virtually a new
eld of study—“bodyology.”36
Anti-corset caricature, 1874. (From Madre natura versus the Moloch of
Fashion)
An analogy with pornography may be useful. Explicit depictions
and descriptions of sex organs and activities have existed in most,
probably all, times and places, ranging from obscene gra ti
scratched on rocks to elaborate philosophical and artistic
productions like the Kama Sutra. But some scholars argue that
“pornography as a legal and artistic category seems to be an
especially Western idea with a speci c chronology and geography.”
It was in early modern Europe that pornography rst became “an
end in itself.”37
Fetishism, like pornography, has a history. Although almost
every “kinky” activity we know of today already existed at the time
of the Roman Empire, this does not necessarily mean that fetishism
has always existed. 38 There are two theories about this. The rst
basically says that yes, fetishism is a universal—or, at least, it has
existed for thousands of years in many cultures. The second theory
argues, on the contrary, that fetishism developed only in modern
Western society. There is evidence for both sides.
 Fetishism, like pornography, seems to be a relatively modern invention.
“La grande épidémie pornograpbique...” (From La Caricature, 1882)
Body modi cation and cross-dressing are common ritual
practices in many cultures. Body parts and clothes have also been
widely fetishized. The Roman poet Ovid was devoted to the charms
of female feet, and Chinese foot-binding exibits many of the
characteristics associated with fetishism. The Sambia of New Guinea
(who engage in ritual fellatio) fetishize boys’ mouths. 39 But
although fetishizing may characterize most males in most cultures,
fetishism, as we understand it today, seems to have rst appeared in
Europe in the eighteenth century and then Crystallized as a distinct
sexual phenomenon in the second half of the nineteenth century.
 “Why were there so many perverts in the nineteenth century?”
asks Colin Wilson in The Mis ts. “It seems strange that none of the
‘sexologists’ recognized the obvious and simple fact that most of the
perversions they were writing about dated from their own
century.”40 In Wilson’s opinion, “imagination and sexual frustration
had combined together” to breed fetishes. There are serious
problems with this theory, not least with respect to the popular idea
of the sexually “frustrated” (and therefore “perverted”) Victorians.
Yet something seems to have happened in the nineteenth century
that forever changed the meaning of sexuality.
The eighteenth century was a transitional period, during which
traditional sexual attitudes and behaviors began to evolve toward
the modern pattern. There was an increasing preoccupation with
explicit eroticism, as associations were drawn between free thought
and sexual “libertinage.” Gradually, people stopped thinking in
terms of sexual acts and began thinking of sexual identities. The
development of capitalism and urbanization in Europe apparently
provided an environment within which “fetishists” could begin to
become aware of themselves and contact others with like interests.
Yet biology also plays a role in fetishism.
The Evolution of Fetishism
Sexuality is a product of both history and nature. Human sexual
behavior (including sexual anomalies like fetishism) is almost
certainly determined in part by biological factors. Neither history
nor psychoanalysis satisfactorily explains why fetishism, like all the
“perversions,” is so much more common among men than women.
Sociobiology appeals as an explanatory paradigm because it seems
to address this type of issue in terms of material evidence with
respect to evolution, genetics, and hormones. Although many people
resist accepting it because of what they perceive as its iniquitous
political implications, there seems little doubt that not only our
bodies and genitals but also our minds are sexed. 41 Men and
women have di erent attitudes toward love and sex.
In one of Woody Allen’s lms, Diane Keaton says, “Sex without love
is an empty experience,” to which Allen replies, “Yes, but as empty
experiences go it’s one of the best.” This attitudinal di erence is not
absolute, but then neither are physical di erences; yet no one would
deny that, on average, most men are taller than most women.
Exceptions do not disprove generalizations. Nor does social learning
theory adequately explain gender di erences. If men are much more
inclined than women to fetishize body parts and clothes, this may
not only be because they inadequately separated from their mothers
or grew up in a patriarchal society.
The principles of sociobiology (or evolutionary psychology)
imply that much of our sexual behavior evolved through the normal
process of Darwinian natural selection because it served adaptive
purposes over the long run. Most relevant here is the observation
that the secondary sexual characteristics evolved as they did
because they convey information about reproductive tness. (The
information conveyed might or might not be true in individual
cases, but if it is true more often than not, it becomes an
evolutionary force.) Thus, if heterosexual men are attracted to
women with large breasts, slim waists, and smooth skin, this is
because these characteristics are associated with young adult
females of maximum reproductive capacity. Ancestral males who
preferred prepu-bescent or older females lost out in the competition
to perpetuate their genes. This is potentially relevant to fashion,
because in the animal world secondary sexual characteristics
(antlers, vivid plummage, etc.) might be considered biological
fashions in the sense that variations in those characteristics can
enhance or inhibit one sex’s attractiveness to the other. The process
is circular: Over the generations, characteristics that are attractive
because they denote reproductive tness are selected for and thus
gradually become phylogenetically dominant.
Throughout the animal kingdom, males and females tend to have
di erent evolutionary strategies. Male mammals, being free from
the burdens of childbear-ing and lactation, can maximize their
genetic legacy by mating with as many fertile females as possible.
Human males, therefore, seem to have evolved highly visually
oriented patterns of sexual arousal as a result of being continually
alert to the possibility of mating with any “attractive” (i.e.,
apparently reproductively t) female who might happen by. The
human male tendency to become sexually aroused by visual cues
suggests, in turn, that human fetishes might have biological roots. A
corset, for example, exaggerates the hourglass shape that attracts
many heterosexual men; that exaggeration might exert a powerful
psychological attraction on a subset of males.
 As the psychologist Glenn Wilson writes, “It is probably no
accident that the brain area responsible for assertive male sexuality
is a part of the hypothalamus that is close to the visual imput system
(the preoptic nucleus).” If male sexuality evolved to be “target-
seeking,” this may be one reason “why men are particularly prone
to the distortions of sexual inclination we call paraphilias.”42
Wilson’s research into sexual fantasies reveals striking gender
di erences, including a much greater emphasis in men’s fantasies on
visual, voyeuristic, and fetishistic themes. Male fantasies often
include references to clothing items, “such as black stockings and
[garterbelts], sexy underwear, leather, or nurses’ uniforms; for
example, ‘A sixteen-year-old virgin dressed in a short-skirted school
uniform.’ “43 Men apparently have this type of fantasy two and a
half times more often than women. One might speculate that such
articles of clothing act (at least for some men) as, in e ect, arti cial
secondary sexual characteristics that serve as indicators of the
sexual desirability and availability of the female.
Dominance and rank-related aggression seem to be characteristic
of human males, not only because men compete for access to
women (and other resources), but because women who preferred to
pair with high-status males would on the whole be more successful
in raising and protecting children. Dominance and aggression as
evolved sex-linked characteristics may also be related to the much
greater prevalence of paraphilias among men. A “dominance-
failure” interpretation of fetishism has received some empirical
support: Male students who were told that women found them
unattractive showed temporarily diminished interest in women and
a greater response to objects such as shoes and underwear. 44
The experiment involved only a temporary and arti cially
induced fetishizing, of course. Yet the links between fetishism and
sadomasochism may imply the devaluation of a human love object.
That sounds moralistic (like much of the writing on fetishism), but
sociobiology implies that male “hard-wired” characteristics make
men inclined to be lustful and indiscriminate in their sexual
couplings. Nature may also have constructed sex variants, either by
chance or for reasons that are still unclear. At the very least, one
can conclude that evolved psychological characteristics will be
expressed to a greater or lesser degree across a range of possibilities,
and that some percentage of individuals therefore will exhibit
extreme behaviors.
The increasingly convincing demonstration by evolutionary
psychologists that human sexual behavior has evolved through
natural selection does not rule out the possibility that individual
behaviors might have diverse and complex causes, including speci c
organic lesions. By the middle of the twentieth century, medical
researchers had begun to explore the relationship between altered
brain states (organic brain disease) and “sexual psychopathology.”
Arthur Epstein, for example, studied “thirteen cases of fetishism or
fetishism-transvestism, of which nine [of the patients had] abnormal
electroencephalograms, two frank seizures, and ve clinical
evidence of brain disease.” He also surveyed the literature on
fetishism, nding a number of cases in which epilepsy was also
present.
One case from the 1950s of a safety-pin fetishist was particularly
striking. The subject became “‘glassy eyed’ after staring at the pin”
and would make a “humming noise.” Sometimes the sight (or
thought) of a safety pin would trigger actual seizures, and
sometimes, after a period of immobility, he would dress himself in
his wife’s clothes. The patient underwent a left-anterior temporal
lobectomy, which cured both fetishism and transvestism. Dissection
of the brain segment revealed a gliotal process (i.e., a type of brain
tumor). 45
Epstein also suggested that the characteristics associated with
fetish objects might be related to factors that were signi cant in
shaping the sexual behavior and psychosexual characteristics of the
human species. For example, the shininess, smell, and/or shape of
certain objects or materials might be connected with the evolution
of sexual-arousal patterns in primates. In support of this theory, he
reported how two nonhuman primates in a zoo became sexually
aroused by a boot. There is no con ict between his two theories—
the evolutionary and the brain-disease theories—since in the human
fetishist also, “the relationship to the fetish object may be
understood as a release of an approach automatism toward a
speci c object.”46
There are problems with organic (biological) explanations,
which focus exclusively on the physical organ of the brain while
ignoring the mind that the brain produces. Physiological brain
malfunctions (particularly in the temporal lobe) may be factors in
some cases of fetishism, as in other kinds of compulsive behaviors.
But the evidence indicates that there are at least “two possible
etiologies: one that is set o inside a scarred brain and one that, of
course using the brain, is a response primarily to psychological
experience.”47
Many psychologists today believe that Freudian theories have
little scienti c validity, and they place more credence in
neurological factors, arguing that the preponderance of paraphilias
among males can be at least partially explained by genetic,
hormonal, and evolutionary causes. 48 “Research has shown that
there may be some genetic predisposition to SM and TV traits,
though a liking for rubber and leather appears totally learned,”
writes research psychologist Chris Gosselin. “It also seems that some
are biologically more prone to this conditioning than others—it’s the
way their minds are built.” Whether or not an individual plays this
genetic “card” may depend on life experiences. 49Fetishism is widely
believed to be “a kind of compulsion, a combination of unusual
‘brain wiring’ and aberrant conditioning,” including “a restrictive
sexual upbringing.”50 In many instances, fetishism appears to
involve an exaggeration, or perversion, of characteristics shared by
most human males. Speci c manifestations of fetishism are almost
certainly overdetermined (caused by more than one thing).
Neosexualities and Normopaths
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric
Association de nes fetishism as “recurrent, intense sexually arousing
fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors involving the use of nonliving
objects (e.g. female undergarments).”51In practice, however, it is
often impossible to draw a clear line between, say, foot and shoe
fetishism.
The inanimate fetish object is often, but not necessarily, a piece
of clothing: aprons, boots, dresses, eyeglasses, gloves, handkerchiefs,
raincoats, shoes, stockings, underwear, and uniforms. Often quite
speci c requirements exist: The dress might have to be wet or
slashed; the shoes, shiny or creaking. The fetish can also be a type of
material, such as fur, leather, silk, or rubber, which may or may not
be made up into a particular kind of clothing. The material fetishes
have been divided into two types: “hard” and “soft.” Hard fetish
items (made of materials such as leather and rubber) tend to be
smooth, shiny, and black, and are “often tight constricting garments
or shoes.” Soft fetishes are u y, frilly, or fuzzy. Examples include
lingerie and fur. 52
Many objects have been used as fetishes, however, not only
clothes: hairbrushes, prostheses (arti cial limbs), safety pins, snails
and cockroaches (the fetishist may put them on his body while he
masturbates, or imagine them crushed under high-heeled shoes),
whips, roses, and the handlebars of an Italian racing bike. There are
also the so-called negative fetishes, which involve the absence of
something normally there: Some men are sexually attracted to
amputees or cripples. Nevertheless, clothes are particularly
important, both because of their close association with the body and
because they are arti cial objects that can be replaced, hoarded, and
handed from one person to another. 53

Sexual symbolism? Nineteenth-century trade card.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual lists fetishism under “Sexual
and Gender Identity Disorders” (formerly “Psychosexual Disorders”),
along with exhibitionism, pedophilia, sexual sadism and masochism,
transvestism, voyeurism, zoophilia, and atypical paraphilias, such as
coprophilia, klismophilia, urophilia, telephone scatalogia, and
necrophilia. This framework is understandably unpopular with
many enthusiasts, who prefer to regard fetishism as an unorthodox
but legitimate sexual variant, perhaps even a more liberated
sexuality.
David Kunzle, in Fashion and Fetishism, argues that psychiatric
interpretations of fetishism are “useless, if not actually harmful.”54
A critical approach to pathological case histories is certainly
warranted, but Kunzle makes no distinction between century-old
texts like Kra t-Ebing’s Psychopathia Sexualis and contemporary
medical research into human sexuality. He rejects any attempt to
analyze the possible unconscious signi cance of fetish fashion on
the grounds that all psychological accounts of fetishism are
necessarily reductionist and repressive because they interpret the
phenomenon in “pathological” terms. Apparently in response to
such protests, the most recent edition of the DSM has changed the
diagnostic criteria for fetishism from “act[ing] on these urges” to
“caus[ing] clinically signi cant distress or impairment in social,
occupational, or other important activities of functioning.”55
Kunzle prefers to rely exclusively on the “feelings, experiences,
and judgements” of “dedicated fetishists.”56 This type of “ eld
work” is crucially important, yet informants do not always tell the
whole truth because as insiders their perspective is inevitably one-
sided and may entail a degree of denial. The psychiatrist Joyce
McDougall has described
 Constriction fetishes may symbolize both container and contents, argue
psychoanalysts. Trade card.
a fetishist patient who paid prostitutes to whip him and
stamp on his genitals. In one session he reported meeting
another client of the same brothel who suggested that they
had much in common since he too paid to be whipped on
the genitals—but by boys. My patient became highly
anxious and said, “... but that man’s crazy. We have
absolutely nothing in common. Why he’s a homosexual!”57
How do fetishists explain why some people nd it sexy to be
corseted and whipped or put into rubber panties for “watersports”?
“I’m not going to answer that question by constructing a theory
about infantile trauma caused by soggy Pampers and mommy’s cold
hands,” writes Pat Califa, a leading gure in America’s lesbian
SM/fetish community. “Psychoanalytic theories about the origins of
sexual preferences never give you testable hypotheses that can be
operationally de ned and proved or refuted. Instead what you get
are moral statements about the inferiority of ‘the other,’ or a
recycled version of your own sexual prejudices. A sociological or
anthropological approach is more interest-ing.”58
Califa is one of the most articulate exponents of what might be
called the fetishist point of view, with both the strengths and the
weaknesses of that perspective: the intimate knowledge and the lack
of critical distance. As she says of an English acquaintance, she is
“good at rationalising sexual deviation.” By a “sociological or
anthropological approach,” she really means, I believe, a purely
descriptive approach to fetishism, one that either avoids analyzing
what it means or assimilates modern fetishism to ritual practices in
other cultures. Her approach is not entirely satisfactory, yet Califa is
surely correct in arguing that “the more we know about what people
do, the more we can understand how that behavior functions in
their lives—what the rewards, stresses and penalties are.”59 As
Freud observed, “[Fetishists] are usually quite satis ed with [their
fetish], or even praise the way it eases their erotic life.”60
Is fetishism “normal”?61 The very term has become problematic,
except as a synonym for normative. Many sexual practices that were
regarded as abnormal in the past (such as oral-genital sex) have
become increasingly accepted. Most doctors today do not ask “‘Is
this behavior normal?’ but rather ‘What does this behavior signify
for this client? Is it reinforcing or handicapping?’ and, of course, ‘Is
the behavior socially tolerable?’ “62 A study of 100 rubber fetishists
indicated that “fetishism may exist as one isolated preference and is
no more associated with pathology than a hobby such as stamp
collecting.”63 But it is undeniably true that some violent criminals
are severely disturbed sexually. 64 William Heirens, for example,
murdered three women by the age of seventeen and had long been
obsessed with “the feeling and color” of women’s panties. 65
Some deviations, such as the tendency to get excited by
high-heeled shoes... might seem trivial or even laughable.
But others, such as the ritual slashing of women in the
stomach so as to create a wound reminiscent of the vagina...
are among the most horri c crimes known to human
society. It is impossible to escape the impression that there
is some kind of continuum between minor fetishistic and
sadomasochistic “kinks” and some of the ghastly serial
crimes that culminate from an escalating chain of sexual
fantasy and acting out. That is why the understanding of
these phenomena is so important to clinical and forensic
practitioners. Although many forms of sexual behavior
previously regarded as perverted have been legitimised in
recent decades, there is bound to be a limit to the process. 66
Human sexuality is never just a matter of doing what comes
naturally; it is always a psychological construction in which fantasy
plays an important role. This is why fetishism is so interesting. 67
Precisely because it seems so bizarre—why would someone be
sexually excited by shoes?—fetishism shows how “the sexual
instinct and the sexual object are merely soldered together.”68 The
psychoanalyst Joyce McDougall uses the term “the neosexualities”
to describe variants like fetishism that involve the creation of a new
sexual scenario. 69 She asks: When analysts declare a behavior or
fantasy to be perverse, “upon what grounds do they make these
pronouncements?” “Adaptation to reality” sounds good, but whose
de nition of reality will be the standard? What hidden value
judgments lie behind the criticism of perverse fantasy? We may
insist that “the pervert is always someone else!” But at least some of
those who “ ee imaginative life” (McDougall calls them
“normopaths”) act in a way that is harmful and dehumanizing. If
“the normopath does everything in the missionary position,” is that
not also perverse? 70
“It used to be that a pervert was simply a guy who made love to
old shoes, say,” writes “layman” George Stade, “but no longer, not if
you read the people with clinical experience.” For “the experts
agree... that a pervert is not a pervert by virtue of what he does,
sexually speaking,... but by virtue of the frame of mind in which he
does it”—with “fantasies of degradation and revenge,” for example,
or the “desire... to reinstate the primitive mother-child unity.” But
Stade asks, “Would humans bother with sex at all if you were to
take away their fantasies of degration and revenge?” (What would a
“normal” fantasy be like?) As Stade observes, many men “fall in
love with stand-ins for their mothers and... if they don’t want to
merge with them, I’m damned if I know what they want to do.” It is
easier to identify “straights.” “They are us.” We just need to ignore
all the polymorphous perverse behavior we engage in under the
name of “fore-play.”71
But what if “straights” and “perverts” begin to dress alike?
Everything from a fetishist’s dream is on the fashion runways. (Vivienne
Westwood)
 two
Fashion and Fetishism
Today bondage, leather, rubber, ‘second skins,’ long, tight skirts,
split dresses, zipped bottines—everything from a fetishist’s dream—is
available directly from Alai’a, Gaultier, Montana, Versace.”1 As
Vogue reported in 1992, many of the world’s most important fashion
designers were inspired by sexual perversity. A year later, however,
some observers dismissed fetish fashions as a passing fad: “Gone are
the styles glorifying bondage and S/M.”2 But this was manifestly
inaccurate.
For the past thirty years, the “playful” use of fetishistic themes
has been increasingly assimilated into fashion. Whatever the ebb
and ow of seasonal collections, fashion has repeatedly and
increasingly emphasized fetishistic styles. Fetishism is especially
signi cant at this time in history because it is no longer associated
primarily with individual sexual “perversions” or sexual subcultures.
Hitherto secret practices have become increasingly visible
throughout popular culture. Prior to about 1965, fetishistic imagery
was mostly hidden away in sex magazines like High Heels, and fetish
fashions were hard to obtain. But then the objects and images
associated with fetishism began to come out of the closet.
Kinky Boots and Catsuits
The “sexual liberation” movement of the 1960s and 1970s led to a
reassessment of sexual deviations. “Prudery” was increasingly
dismissed as an unfortunate historical product of “the Judeo-
Christian religious tradition” and the rise of the capitalist
bourgeoisie. The “body taboo” was said to be “crumbling under a
rea rmation of human sexuality and a denial of sexual guilt.”3 As
rebellion and pleasure were increasingly privileged and the
restrictions imposed by civilization correspondingly criticized,
“perverse” sexuality was openly acknowledged to be seductive.
The rst fetish fashion to achieve popular acceptance was the so-
called kinky boot, previously associated primarily with prostitutes,
especially dominatrixes. “Fashion or Fetish?” asked the editors of
High Heels.4 The high-heeled leather boots could be knee-high or
thigh-high, and they were often buttoned or laced. A reader of
Bizarre Life submitted two photographs of English fashion model
Jean Shrimpton, along with a note: “I thought your readers might
get a thrill out of seeing [these]. The ‘Kinky’ boots send shivers up
my spine whenever I look at them, and I must admit that Jean’s
long, luxurious hair is thrilling, too.”5
The television show The Avengers was particularly in uential in
popularizing fetish fashion. Diana Rigg played Emma Peel, a
powerful, sexy woman whose leather catsuit was directly inspired
by the “couture” fetish costumes created by John Sutcli e of
Atomage. The rst version of Mrs. Peel’s costume was even more
closely modeled on the Atomage prototype, but the television
producers thought it was too overtly fetishistic, so the full-face mask
and hood were lopped o .
In 1990, there was a revival of interest in Emma Peel’s style,
concurrent with a fashion for Sixties Retro—especially catsuits. This
time around, she was heralded in the fashion press as a feminist
heroine and compared with Catwoman, another erce female. The
image of a woman who is both strong and sexy obviously appeals to
many women (as well as men). Whatever the style means, it is not
just something being foisted on women by male designers.
It is important to emphasize how common fetish fashion has been
for a very long time. “The 1960s were wonderful years for those of
us interested in exotic-erotic wear,” recalled one rubber enthusiast.6
In 1971, fetish-inspired fashions (such as kinky boots, leather, and
corset-style lacing) were even being sold at low-budget department
stores like Montgomery Ward. Men’s clothing also became
conspicuously more erotic during this period, when rock and roll
provided a new type of male role model. As one anonymous
leatherite asserted,
Permissiveness always brings with it new insights.... We
have become more blase... We say that “It’s his hangup,” or
even more casually “He’s doing his thing!”... No longer is
the leather lover looked upon as a “freak.”... The cavorting
rock and roll singer wearing the skin-tight leather suit is the
masculine sex symbol to our nation’s youth.... There’s no
doubting that leather represents masculinity and that’s what
our girls want (regardless of their sex).7
Emma Peel of The Avengers, a television show of the 1960s that
popularized fetish like the leather catsuit. (Archive Photos)
All in leather at a Montgomery Ward fashion show, 1971. (Copyright ©
UPI/Bettmann Archive)
Long before Madonna “spearheaded the mass reception of S/M
imagery,” many performers used fetish clothing.8
The punks, a youth subculture associated with bands like the Sex
Pistols, were especially instrumental in bringing fetishism into
fashion. The punk “style in revolt” was a deliberately “revolting
style” that incorporated into fashion various o ensive or threatening
objects like dog collars and chains that were designed to horrify
straight observers:
Safety pins were... worn as gruesome ornaments through the
cheek, ear, or lip. “Cheap” trashy fabrics (plastic, lurex, etc.)
in vulgar designs (e.g., mock leopard skin) and “nasty”
colors, long discarded by the quality end of the fashion
industry as obsolete kitsch, were salvaged by the punks and
turned into garments... which o ered self-conscious
commentaries on the notions of modernity and taste.... In
particular, the illicit iconography of sexual fetishism was...
exhumed from the boudoir, closet, and the pornographic lm
and placed on the street.9
Punk women “appropriated this forbidden discourse and
redirected or undermined its meanings.”10 They manipulated sexual
clichés such as shnet stockings, stiletto heels, visible brassieres,
and rubber mackintoshes. The female singer Siouxsie Sioux wore
black underpants in wet-look vinyl, a harness bra, one thigh-high
black boot, and one high-heeled shoe with an ankle strap that said
“Bondage.” Also a Nazi armband.
The fashion designer most closely associated with the punks was
Vivienne Westwood. In 1974, she transformed her store into the
notorious SM, bondage, and fetish boutique Sex, which sold
rubberwear, bondage leather, and bizarre shoes. The store was
decorated with whips, chains, masks, “tit clamps,” and even a
hospital bed covered with a rubber sheet. The clients were about
half fetishists (who had expensive rubber suits custom made) and
half young people who wanted clothes that were “about breaking
taboos” and making “a statement about how BAD you are.”11 “The
bondage clothes were ostensibly restrictive,” says Westwood, “but
when you put them on they gave you a feeling of freedom.”12
Westwood herself wore “total S&M as fashion” in the very early
1970s. She wore “rubber stockings and negligees with stilettos, and
later full bondage at a time when everyone was in ares and
platforms.” It was a way of challenging “orthodoxy in dress.”13
Westwood’s former partner Malcolm McClaren recently argued that
because rubber and leather “symbolize a radical attitude... fetish
fashion is the embodiment of youthfulness!”14
Terrorist Chic
The sinister undercurrent of sex and violence was not limited to
subculture styles. Seventies fashion, in general, was characterized by
such a strong undertone of perverse eroticism and sadomasochistic
violence that one scholar described it grimly as “Terrorist Chic.”15
The “fantasy clothes” of the 1960s had been replaced by a “new
brutalism.”16 Even department-store windows featured mannequins
that were blindfolded, tied up, and shot, and fashion magazines
emphasized perversity and decadence.
“Cabaret freaks and perverse sex nd echoes in today’s
decadence,” wrote Barbara Rose in an essay for American Vogue.
The article was illustrated by Helmut Newton, whose “photographs
of beautiful women trapped or constricted accentuate the interface
between liberation and bondage.... [A]n anonymous hotel room
evokes fantasies of potential erotic adventure.... Glittering surfaces
catch and re ect light in images that couple elegance with pain, n-
de-siecle opulence with contemporary alienation.” Yet because there
were usually “no visible oppressors” in these sadomasochistic “mini-
dramas,” Rose suggested that the photographs implied that the
“bondage was of woman’s own making.”17
Helmut Newton is said to have “made fetishism chic.” Back in
the 1970s, fashion stylists who were looking for the right accessories
for Newton’s photographs had to ransack shops that catered to
prostitutes and fetishists. But by the 1990s, high fashion had come
around to his view of the modern woman.18 Although Newton
cannot be credited with single-handedly bringing fetishism into
fashion, his photographs have been extremely in uential because of
their focus on the relationship between sex and power. His dramatis
personae—sexual personae—included the voyeur, the exhibitionist,
the prostitute, the fetishist, the sadomas-ochist, the transvestite, and
the dominatrix.19
Consider, for example, one of a series of photographs by Newton
published in French Vogue in 1977 under the title “Woman or Super-
Woman.” A woman stands before a mirror, wearing a helmet and
riding boots; her legs planted rmly apart, she pulls open a black
leather trenchcoat by Claude Montana, a designer known for his
sexy leather. Although the mirror usually functions in art as an icon
of female “vanity,” here it recalls the mirror-play of the fetishistic
masturba-tor. The horsewoman or amazon may be considered a
subcategory of the domi-natrix, and, indeed, the photograph on the
next page of Vogue showed a well-known model wearing swollen
jodphurs (by Thierry Mugler) and riding on a man’s back. According
to the text, garments like the trenchcoat and jodphurs are part of
the wardrobe of “femmes conquérantes.”

Woman or Supenvoman? Leather trenchcoat by Claude Montana

photographed by Helmut Newton for [Paris] Vogue, 1911. (Helmut
Newton and [Paris] Vogue)
The fetishistic appeal of “hard tack” has long played a role
within fetishist and SM pornography, where the idea of woman as
rider sometimes merges with its opposite. (In 1994, American Vogue
reproduced Newton’s photograph “Saddle,” which depicts a woman
on a bed wearing jodphurs and boots—and with a heavy leather
saddle on her back, ready to be mounted.) It is one thing, however,
for prostitute cards to advertise “Horse Riding Fantasies” and quite
another for the “Riding Mistress” of pornographic fantasy to appear
in the world’s most prestigious fashion magazines.
The 1970s were not a period of calm after the uproar of the
1960s. Although the political radicalism of the student left faded
after the end of the Vietnam War, in almost all other respects the
cultural radicalism of the 1960s not only did not vanish, but
di used throughout the wider society. In particular, the sexual
revolution became a mass phenomenon. Legal restrictions on
censorship weakened, and the commercialization and
commodi cation of sex accelerated.
“Dig Black Stockings and Boots?” asked a 1975 article in the
popular journal Sexology, adding reassuringly, “There’s a Bit of
Fetishist in Everyone.” “Surprise! All the embellishments of sex are
more healthy than not—so enjoy them.” The author, Roger Madison,
admitted that extreme cases might present a problem. “But not that
bad a problem.” The man with a lust for shoes might wish to be
“rehabilitated,” but if not, well, he had “a very simple and
inexpensive sex life.” After all, the fetish wasn’t really “hurting
anybody.” Ultimately, it seemed more important to avoid “the trap
of neurotic guilt feelings.”20
It still mattered what the fetish was, however. According to the
author of a paperback that combined pop psychology and soft-core
pornography, “If the desire is directed at an old pair of Army boots
—to pick an absurd item—we would have to begin therapeutic
exorcision of this particular fetish. But the more usually seen
attachment to the female high-heeled boot is another matter.” After
all, the boot is related to the leg and the leg to the vagina, so the
fetishist is relating to the female that way! And “men do like high
heels for the constricting e ect they give to the female walk.”21 In
retrospect, we can see the biases in this analysis. The “old pair of
Army boots” seemed “absurd” and sick because they implied a
homoerotic attachment. The fetishizing of the female body and
clothes, on the contrary, and even the interest in bondage, seemed
normal and healthy.
Shifting from sleazy paperbacks to college textbooks, we nd
that fetishism was increasingly described as a problem for only “an
older generation,” since with “increased public body exposure such
fetishes may begin to disappear.”22 But as long as fetishes lasted,
they were to be tolerated. As medical experts adopted an
increasingly permissive tone toward male fetishists, they were
correspondingly censorious toward the men’s wives. Asked about a
man who wanted his wife to be partly clothed during coitus (“Does
this obsessive behavior require psychiatric help?”), the columnist for
Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality responded sharply: “What really
requires being examined more fully is the wife’s need to make an
issue of this request.... One would want to know her attitudes
toward sex.” Marital counseling was suggested, “if they continue to
experience this situation as a problem.”23 The book Sex and the
Liberated Man encouraged spouses to “give in, at least to some
extent.”24
This doesn’t mean if your partner insists on going to bed
with you and a boa constrictor, you have to agree! Fetishes
and fetishistic acts vary widely, and you may nd some of
them rather disagreeable... however, you can try to discover
whether your mate has some innocuous fetishes that you
can go along with. If you do, you will probably nd her
most grateful. By the same token, if you can get her to agree
to let you indulge yourself in some of your own harmless
fetishes, you will feel closer to her—and you probably will
feel considerably more stimulated than you otherwise
would. Particularly if either of you has certain sex
problems... the use of fetishistic enjoyments may prove
desirable for the achievement of maximum adequacy.25
(Notice how the gender of the fetishist spouse keeps shifting.)
By the late 1970s and the 1980s, however, there was something
of a reversal in both popular and psychiatric attitudes. Sexual
liberation was not all happy and healthy. One could criticize the
“Victorian” attitude toward masturbation and still reject the man
who masturbated to pictures of women’s bound and mutilated
bodies. Robert Stoller’s book Perversion was particularly in uential
among psychiatrists. The women’s movement also called attention
to the ways in which male sexual behavior exploited or
dehumanized women. The reassessment of fetishism, like the new
critique of pornography and “sexist” imagery in general, would
eventually lead to serious disagreements between pro-censorship
feminists and sex radicals.
More S Than M
Fashion, especially fashion photography, has played an important
part in the so-called sex wars or the sex/porn debates, which began
in the 1970s and continue to rage today. The orthodox feminist
view emphasized the aggressive aspects of the “male gaze” and the
way fashion objecti ed women. The most overtly erotic fashions
and fashion photographs came in for the most criticism. But by the
1980s, some feminist scholars questioned whether fashion imagery
could be decoded so simply.26 Do women necessarily respond to
fashion images with a passive narcissism? Might not some viewers
(such as lesbians) consume fashion images in a de ant or subversive
way? According to Rosetta Brooks, photographers like Helmut
Newton used the conventions of the pornographic photograph in
such a way as to call into question existing stereotypes, “mak ng]
straightforward accusations of sexism problematic.”27
“Fashion coverage that shows women as primarily sexual, even
masturbatory fantasy gures has had an e ect upon how all women
are viewed—an e ect no less powerful because it is insidious; an
e ect no less dangerous because its medium is fashion,” insisted
fashion writer Colin McDowell.28 But the English fashion designer
Helen Storey argued that since all clothes carry gender messages, “a
Laura Ashley smock which [signi es] the subservient woman locked
prettily in her place is far more frightening than black plastic
boots.”29
 In 1991 when journalist Sarah Mower asked Storey about the
symbolism of her own sexy “bondage” collection, the designer
insisted that it was “more liberating than restricting” and that it was
about women’s “anger.” Mower mused, “From the woman’s point of
view, it seems that the new way of looking at bondage is much more
S than M.” It was important to remember, Mower added, that “the
link between fashion and fetishism has a long history... [and] what
shocks at rst becomes commonplace in time… we all know what
happened to ‘kinky’ boots.”30
Many fetish-inspired fashions have found their way “onto the
style pages, into the stores, and onto the streets.” In December 1987,
for example, British Elle published a cover featuring clothes in shiny
PVC, Lycra, and rubber. In January 1988, Elle showed a black satin
corset and leather micro skirt. February’s Elk teamed a rubber jacket
by Ectomorph with a corset-bondage belt, and so on. Of course,
“words like ‘fetish’ tend to be too direct, too threatening, for mass-
market purposes—so other terms have to be found... like ‘body
conscious,’ ‘slick chic,’ or just plain ‘sexy.’ “31 Today, as in the
1980s, “kinky” fashion is frequently interpreted simply as “sexy”
fashion.
 Punk girls, 1987. (Copyright © Grace Lau)
Because fetish fashion often resembles dominatrix gear, it can
also be read as a subcategory of “power dressing,” which was the
major fashion trend of the 1980s. “Helmut Newton’s photographs
from the 70s and 80s are a strong in uence,” said designer Liza
Bruce in 1994. “The idea of the woman being very strong.”32
The image of the “bad girl” also appeals to many women. The
American designer Betsey Johnson did a fashion show in the 1980s
at the Mudd Club, featuring bad girls behind bars. More recently,
the feminist organizers of an art exhibition used the title “Bad Girls”
(rather than, say, “Angry Women”) to characterize the artists being
shown. Many women wear clothing with fetishistic associations.
Whether they do this to please men or because they themselves nd
erotic grati cation in items like high-heeled shoes and lingerie may
be left as an open question for the moment.
It is likely, however, that the sex-and-power “bad girl” image is
part of the appeal of fetish fashion for women. This brings us back
to the issue of female fetishists. Some feminists seem almost to feel
that there is a stigma associated with the rarity of female “perverts,”
who take on the heroic proportions of valorized “bad girls,”
compared with mousy and repressed neurotics. Under the
circumstances, their avid search for female fetishists begins to look
like a strange form of “perversion-theft” or, as Naomi Schor
wonders, perhaps even “the latest and most subtle form of penis
envy.”33
Because Freud interpreted fetishism in terms of phallic
symbolism, he is often accused of “phallocentrism.”34 For many
feminist theorists, the fetish is interpreted as “a symptom both of
capitalism and patriarchy, in its double aspect of glorifying objects
and objectifying women: a perspective which means, yet again, that
the fetishist is always male, while the woman becomes the fetish
itself, the perfect object.” Other feminists, however, have observed
that this analysis “can end up leaving women’s desire out of the
picture.” Therefore, the newer theory states that
while emerging within the framework of a phallic order, the
fetish disrupts that order by xing sexuality away from its
“proper”... focus of attraction—that is, the genitals of the
opposite sex—and ultimately away from the gendered body
 altogether. It moves sexuality towards a preoccupation with
the fragment, the inanimate,... and since the fetish is an
object out of place, its power erupts outside a hierarchy of
“normality.”... Fetishism is classi ed as a perversion in that
it pushes to the limits and disrupts a phallocentric, or penis-
focused, sexual order.35
This type of feminist critique is frustrating because of the way it
combines trenchant analysis with ideological postering. Yes, women
are frequently objecti ed, treated as “tits and ass.” And yes, it is
inadequate to regard women solely as victimized objects, since they
are also sexually desiring subjects. But it is naive to imagine that
sexuality could be moved “away from the gendered body
altogether.” Are we hermaphrodites? Nor is it apparent that
women’s lives would be improved by moving sexuality “towards...
the fragment, the inanimate.” The concept of disrupting the
“phallocentric... sexual order” is much beloved by certain
academies, but the fact remains that fetishists themselves tend to be
intensely “penis-focused.”
 “Bad girls” from Betsey Johnson fashion show at the Mudd Club.
(Roxanne Lowit)
Although fewer women than men are sexually aroused to the
point of orgasm by clothing items, some are. Juliet Hopkins
published a case study of foot and shoe fetishism in a six-year-old
girl. Yet, as Hopkins herself admits, “the girl was psychotic and
believed herself to be a boy.”36 In a recent and important book,
Female Fetishism, Lorraine Gamman and Merja Makinen cite a
number of cases of female fetishists, including a seventeen-year-old
mackintosh fetishist and a white-stocking fetishist who was also a
bulimic. The authors also make the provocative (but not entirely
convincing) argument that eating disorders like bulimia could be
considered a type of food fetishism.37
The psychiatrist Robert Stoller has reported on several fetishistic
transvestites who are female. One woman said that “simply putting
on men’s clothing” could “provoke an orgasm,” which gave her “far
greater pleasure” than intercourse. In early adolescence she
experienced her rst orgasm while wearing her brother’s suit, “and
when I looked at myself in the mirror, I found that I resembled my
father enormously.”38 Another women said that she had been
“sexually excited” by wearing Levis ever since she was about eleven
years old: “When I put on a pair of blue denim Levis—and not any
other male clothing has this e ect—I feel much more than just
masculine. The excitement begins immediately—as I begin to pull
them... up, towards my thighs.” The orgasmic feeling was
accentuated when she wore boots.39
Women often wear men’s clothes, of course, but usually for
practical, political, or fashionable reasons, not because they obtain
direct erotic satisfaction from the clothes. (Among women,
transsexuals are more common than transvestites.) The argument
that men are unfairly stigmatized as “perverts” while women are
socially permitted to cross-dress misses the point. It is not behavior
that is signi cant, but the meaning that the behavior indicates. A
woman in a low-cut dress may be exhibitionistic, but she is not an
exhibitionist in the same way that a asher is—because her feelings
and motivations are di erent.
Trickle-Down Perversion
Fetishism is not the same as clothing eroticism. Consider the
seventeenth-century poet Robert Herrick, whom the fashion
historian James Laver described as the “ rst fetishist.” In one poem,
Herrick writes:
Whenas in silks my Julia goes
Then, then, methinks, how sweetly ows
The liquifaction of her clothes.
But it was not the silks per se that attracted Herrick; rather, he
refers to them in order to allude to Julia’s silky soft body and to the
creamy ecstasy of sexual orgasm. Similarly, when he writes, “A
sweet disorder in the dress / kindles in clothes a wantonness,” the
lover’s disordered clothes imply a state of erotic dishabille, of
undress as a prelude to love-making. It was not the “tempestuous
petticoat” that he wished to embrace, but Julia herself. Herrick may
have fetishized, but he was not a fetishist; he was merely susceptible
to some of the many other erotic aspects of fashion—its tactile
sensuality, for example, its role in amorous foreplay, and its
ambiguous status with regard to the body that it simultaneously
conceals and displays—all of which may appeal to women as well as
men. There were a few “real” fetishists in the eighteenth century,
but they seem to have been much more common after 1850.
The historical interpretation of nineteenth-century sexuality has
undergone dramatic changes in the past twenty years. Back in 1966,
when Steven Marcus published The Other Victorians, most scholars
accepted his picture of Victorian sexual life as hypocritical
prudishness overlaying pornography and perversion. But gradually,
scholars began to wonder whether this interpretation did not rely
too unquestioningly on the axe-grinding of twentieth-century sexual
reformers—and on our own prejudices. The British historian
Michael Mason has unearthed a wealth of evidence to indicate that
sexual hypocrisy among the Victorians was rare and that many
Victorian women had orgasms and practiced birth control. There
was also a self-consciously hedonistic subculture, “living by the
creed that ‘fucking is the great humanizer.’ “40
Approaching the subject from a very di erent perspective,
Michel Foucault also questioned the “repressive hypothesis,”
suggesting that nineteenth-century society may actually have placed
a new emphasis on sexuality, creating a “veritable discursive
explosion” of attention to sex.41 Far from sex being an unspeakable
topic in the nineteenth century, it was talked about (in modern
jargon, “prob-lematized”) as never before. Nor were people simply
talking about sex.
The French historian Alain Corbin has, in fact, uncovered
evidence that attitudes toward sexuality evolved considerably
between 1850 and the First World War—particularly with respect to
the growth of demands for “elaborate eroticism.” He goes so far as
to compare the sexual culture of the later nineteenth century with
that of the 1970s: “[J]ust as the 1970s saw the proliferation
throughout society of erotic images,... magazines, and gadgets, so
the nal decades of the nineteenth century, despite all the e orts of
legislation... saw the spread... of tastes, fantasies, and techniques
that had formerly been the preserve of aristocratic eroticism.”42
Perversions, he argues, began to “trickle down” through
bourgeois and even working-class society. No longer satis ed with
the quick satisfaction of genital needs, the clients at brothels began
to demand hitherto exotic practices like fellatio, which not long
before had been regarded with such abhorrence that any prostitute
practicing oral sex was shunned by the other brothel inmates and
made to “eat by herself.” But by the end of the century, brothels
hired specialists to teach the ne points of oral sex.
Prostitutes increasingly adopted specialized fantasy costumes:
Brides and nuns were especially popular, as were schoolgirls and
maids. Other sex workers wore luxurious and fashionable negligees.
Nudity was also popular, and prostitutes engaged in lesbian
tableaux, displayed against a “black velvet carpet or in rooms hung
with black satin to bring out the whiteness of their bodies.”43
(Richard von Kra t-Ebing also reported that some “men at brothels
demand that the women... put on certain costumes, such as that of a
ballet dancer or nun, etc.; and... these homes are furnished with a
complete wardrobe for such purposes.”44) Sadomasochistic
scenarios, group sex, and voyeurism became features in many
brothels, writes Corbin. All such practices made of sexuality a
theatrical production and a visual spectacle—which would be
conducive to the rise of specialized sexual fetishes that rely heavily
on visual stimuli and role-playing.
 Cross-dressing courtesan by Numa, Paris, ca. 1850.
Why this sexual revolution happened when it did was the result
of a multiplicity of social and cultural factors. Corbin cites an
increase in wealth extending farther down the social ladder, which
led to changed patterns of consumption—of “illicit” sex, as well as
the more documented cases of food (the spread of gastronomy) and
clothing (the democratization of fashion). Progress in feminism (and
particularly the minority discourse on women’s sexual
emancipation) also played a role in the increasing visibility of
sexuality in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. The spread of
scientia sexualis and the dissemination to adults of this new
information about sexuality were particularly important.45
Was sex research descriptive behavioral science? Or did
psychiatry function repressively to stigmatize “perverse” sexuality?
Early sexologists like Kra t-Ebing have been criticized for regarding
people with unusual sexual interests as a bunch of “blood drinking,
shit eating, corpse mutilating perverts.”46 Certainly, Kra t-Ebing
frequently focused on the “criminal” and “pathological” aspects of
fetishism. A methodological bias may be at work: Since few
fetishists voluntarily came in for treatment, many of those who
entered psychiatric history had been arrested, usually for the theft
of fetish objects, sometimes also for assault or what we would call
sexual molestation: slashing women’s silk dresses or cutting their
hair, for example. Havelock Ellis, who interviewed acquaintances,
took a more romantic or sex-positive approach, arguing that “erotic
fetishism” had “normal foundations” and expressed the human
ability to construct symbols and read “meaning” into objects.47 But
whatever their biases, the sexologists provided information about a
wide range of sexual variations.
The Beat poet Allen Ginsberg told the New York Times that
Kra t-Ebing’s was the rst “forbidden book” he had ever read and
that he “discovered with joy case histories like mine.”48 It seems,
then, that fetishism emerged as part of the nineteenth-century
sexual “revolution.” It was not an entirely new phenomenon (the
“perversions” of eighteenth-century aristocrats were “trickling
down”), but it was also not one that merely received a pathologizing
label at this time. The “labeling” process associated with the
development of modern sexual psychology marked an important, if
ambivalent, stage in the fetishists’ growing awareness of themselves.
The Sex Appeal of the Commodity
“Fashion prescribed the ritual by which the fetish commodity wishes
to be worshipped,” declared the Marxist literary theorist Walter
Benjamin. The use of words like ritual and worship brings us back to
the anthropological discourse on fetishism. But Benjamin also
employed an erotic trope, when he associated fetishism with “the
sex-appeal of the commodity.”49 As we have seen, Freudians argue
that erotic fetishists “worship” the power that they irrationally
attribute to particular objects, such as shoes, while Marxists
emphasize how alienated workers have a “superstitious” adoration
of “idols” that they themselves constructed. Economists have also
used a metaphor from the family romance: Fashion is “capitalism’s
favorite child.”50
Contemporary intellectuals who write about fetishism tend to
utilize both psychoanalytic and Marxist interpretations, albeit
selectively, avoiding any reference to the recent clinical literature
and juxtaposing, say, a Lacanian analysis of phallic signi ers with a
neo-Marxist reading of commodity fetishism. The self-proclaimed
fetishist Pat Califa is dismissive of academic leftist theories, praising
instead the capitalist entrepreneurs who have braved a puritanical
society to supply fetish fashions and equipment to eager “perv”
consumers (although she does criticize outsiders who pro t from the
“kinky” community without pumping capital back into it). The
subject of the production, sale, and cultural signi cance of fetishist
commodities is too large to address adequately, but a few words
may be appropriate.
 The idea of commodity fetishism has been considerably
elaborated since the publication of Marx’s Capital. While Marx
focused on the production of commodities, others such as the
sociologist Thorstein Veblen emphasized the “conspicuous
consumption” of commodities such as clothing that conferred
prestige on their owners. The Hungarian Marxist intellectual Georg
Lukas carried the analysis of commodity fetishism a step further
through the concept of “rei cation,” which described how
capitalism turns both things and people into abstractions. More
recently, cultural critics such as Judith Williamson, author of
Decoding Advertisements, have used semiotics to explore how
advertising fetishizes commodities through the use of language and
imagery: A diamond is made to symbolize love, for example. Jean
Baudrillard’s writing on commodity fetishism has further stressed
the autonomy of the sign, undermining the traditional Marxist
interpretation.51
Meanwhile, a number of feminists have analyzed the “fetishized”
images of women that are so ubiquitous in capitalist society.
Certainly, “codes of the sexual erotic have been commodi ed in the
twentieth century, and... this ‘consumer fetishism of the erotic’ has
permeated representation.” Yet as Lorraine Gamman and Merja
Makinen argue in Female Fetishism, feminist critics may be mistaken
in reading this as “sexual fetishism” that inevitably positions women
as objects and victims. As they point out, “images are often ironic
and may be read di erently,” depending on many variables,
including the (constantly changing) cultural context.52 They use the
same example that I do: Emma Peel from the television series The
Avengers, whom many women have perceived as both sexy and
powerful. Let us leave images, however, and return to tangible
commodities.
Prior to the commercial production of fetishist garments and
paraphernalia, individuals made their own fetish objects, just as
they made their own pornography. By the turn of the century, some
people had gone into the business of producing and selling fetish
objects, especially those like corsets and shoes, which are di cult to
make at home. The famous “Bottier” of London is still remembered
fondly by enthusiasts. By the 1940s and 1950s, Maniatis of Paris
and Cover Girl of London were also producing fetish shoes with
exaggerated heels and platforms. Through the 1970s, however,
many fetish shoes were anonymously produced. They bore no labels
and may have been specially ordered by individual clients from
ordinary (but tolerant) shoemakers.
The producers and distributors of fetish garments and
paraphernalia have sometimes faced legal sanctions, just as
pornographers have. (Several English companies that made rubber
and/or leather clothes were prosecuted in the 1960s.) In some
respects, the situation was easier in the early twentieth century,
when the authorities apparently saw nothing “sexual” in fetishist
material, since it focused on objects and rituals, rather than nudity
and genital intercourse.
From 1923 to 1940, London Life (probably the most important
fetishistic periodical of the twentieth century) published an
extensive and notorious correspondence on corsets and high-heeled
shoes (for both men and women), body-piercing, cross-dressing,
corporal punishment, and related topics. This was at a time when
the publication of “scienti c” literature on sex (such as the work of
Havelock Ellis) was o cially banned in Great Britain. London Life
printed advertisements for shoes (“7-inch heels”) and corsets
(“tightlacing our specialty”). Laurence Lenton of 27a, Crookham
Road, London advertised: “Gentlemen’s Corsets Made to
Speci cation.”53 The commercialization of fetishistic sexuality may
have popularized neosexualities, but it did not create them. Birth-
control devices, aphrodisiacs, abortions, and risque French postcards
also existed prior to being advertised in London Life. Clothing
manufacturers seem, in fact, to have been surprisingly slow to
respond to the desires of fetishists, who often complained that they
found it hard to obtain the garments they wanted.
The sex appeal of the commodity. Erotica catalogue illustrated by Carlos,
ca. 1930–1940. (Kinsey Institute)
Some of the corsetiers, shoemakers, and rubberites who catered
to the fetishist market may have been enthusiasts themselves.
Madame Kayne, for example, is said to have been a tight-lacer. (She
argued that the fashionable waist in the later nineteenth century
measured 14 to 18 inches, “and many young ladies boasted even
smaller than that.”) In the 1930s, she specialized in “old fashioned
slender waisted stays” for “gents” as well as for ladies. “All corsets
are well-boned,” her advertisements promised. She also sold “silk or
satin undies” as well as rubber knickers, pyjamas, and even rubber
breasts.54

Kidskin corset by Laurence Lenton, as seen in London Life. (Peter

Farrer Collection)
“Admirers of the Tiny Waist, the High Heel, the Ear-Ring, and
any number of other imaterial [sic] objects, are fetishists—and each
and every one belongs to a high intellectual order,” declared
Cosmopolite in a 1911 article entitled “The Fascination of the
Fetish.”55 The corseted waist, the high heel, and the practice of
body-piercing were (and remain) three of the most popular fetishes.
These enthusiasms did not usually re ect the fashions of the period
—certainly not the men’s fashions. But enthusiasts were apparently
able to acquire the clothing they wanted.
After the Second World War, a climate of conservatism seems
increasingly to have forced individual fetishists “underground.” Yet
the mainstream fashions of the 1950s contain a number of fetishistic
elements. In particular, Christian Dior’s New Look of 1947 brought
modi ed corsetry back into fashion. In addition to foundation
garments, such as the “waspy” and “merry widow,” fashions such as
the stiletto heel, the petticoat, and the pointed brassiere also
ourished. Indeed, later generations of fetishists tend to look back
on the 1950s as a sort of “silver age” of fetishism, inferior only to
the golden age of the Victorians.
But “the feminine mystique” (not an upsurge in fetishism) was
responsible for the new ultra-feminine fashions. Also relevant were
structural changes within the fashion system (especially the
development of fashion for the masses) and political events such as
the Cold War, which contributed to widespread nostalgia for the
past, including traditional gender roles and symbols. Psychiatric
interest in fetishism reached a new peak in the 1950s, but no
conceptual progress was made. The homophobia characteristic of
the era infected the psychiatric interpretation of fetishism, and
behavior modi cation was often recommended.
Meanwhile, no matter how dramatically fashion changed—from
the androgynous styles of the 1920s to the sex-role stereotyping of
the 1950s—enthusiasts remained loyal to classic clothing fetishes.
The Biz-zarre Club circulated a mimeographed correspondence
column in the 1950s that recalled the pre-war London Life. One man
wrote, “I love tight corsets [and] ultra high heels... and my face
heavily made up.” Another correspondent liked “beautiful lingerie
especially of the period 1900–1920”; he was also “very interested in
tight-lacing.”56
The situation was very di erent in the 1980s, when English
journalists announced that “it was cool to be kinky—fetishism was
back in fashion.” Even during the 1970s, hard-core enthusiasts of
“restrictive” and “protective” clothing had hesitated to appear in
public wearing the fetish garb they bought from rms such as
Sealwear (specialists in rubber) and John Sutcli e of Atomage
(creator of custom-made leather). This changed in 1983, when fetish
fashion clubs opened and were patronized by a mixture of older
enthusiasts and trendy young people.57Contemporary street style is
made up of various “style tribes.” In the 1980s, new tribes
proliferated: “The Goths continued the Punks’ interest in fetishism
and translated it into a more dressy, extravagant style,” recalls Ted
Polhemus. Then came the Pervs, who had a pronounced in uence
both on later style tribes (like the CyberPunks) and on fashion in
general. The Pervs were usually not “real” fetishists, although they
dressed in fetish materials like rubber and adopted items like the
corset and bizarre shoes. They comprised a contingent of pop
musicians, alternative fashion designers (like Pam Hogg and
Krystina Kitsis), and trend-setting club kids.58 Today, the “fetish
scene” or “pervy world” is an international phenomenon. Consumers
have access to garments designed and manufactured by a wide
variety of companies, such as Axford (corsets), Ectomorph (rubber
and wet-look), and Ritual (stilettos). There are fetish stores in
Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, Holland, Japan, Switzerland,
and throughout the United States. (Seattle is a center of SM, for
example, as Atlanta is for cross-dressing.)
Capitalism has certainly played a part in the rise of fetish-
inspired fashions, both because fashion itself developed concurrently
with the rise of capitalism and because the fashion industry has
recently stolen a great many items from the fetishist’s wardrobe. But
this is part of a more general process whereby subculture styles are
assimilated into mainstream fashion, after having been pioneered by
small producers catering to “kinky people.” Once fetish fashions
achieve a certain “style factor” among trendsetters, they are picked
up by internationally famous fashion designers whose work is then
“knocked o ” by mass-market clothing manufacturers.
“Fashion is the comparative of which fetishism is the
superlative,” suggested the clothing historian James Laver.59 Like
many of his “Great Thoughts,” this is an oversimpli cation that
contains a grain of truth. Fetish shoes with 7-inch heels are certainly
an exaggeration of ordinary high heels, but that is not all they are.
Even when fashion designers more or less consciously reproduce the
look of fetishism, the resulting clothes have a di erent meaning
depending on the context and players.
Black leather fetish corset, as seen in Skin Two. (Trevor Watson)
 three
The Corset
As Michel Foucault reminds us, the body has been subject to various
kinds of “disciplinary power.” The relations of power “invest it,
mark it, train it, torture it, force it . . . to emit signs.”1 Many
feminist scholars have argued that the female body, especially, has
been the site of disciplinary regimes, such as dieting and feminine
dress, that are designed to make women docile and “feminine.” In
this context, the corset, in particular, has been interpreted as an
instrument of physical oppression and sexual commodi cation. But
the corset has also been praised for its erotic appeal, and the art
historian David Kunzle has even argued that far from being
oppressed by their corsets, nineteenth-century tight-lacers were
sexually liberated female fetishists who found physical pleasure in
the embrace of the corset.2
“Bound for pleasure?” asked the New York Times. “The debate on
whether corsets embrace or imprison may stir again as newfangled
corsets, seen at the recent resort collections, are appearing on the
streets.”3 “Take a deep breath,” warned Vogue.4 The reappearance of
the fashionable corset (as both underwear and outerwear) reveals
how the meaning of clothing is constantly rede ned. In this chapter,
we will look at corsetry, past and present, as fashion, fetish, and
fantasy. If I may interject a personal note: Some members of the
London Life League, an organization of corset enthusiasts, believe
that I am “anti-corset,” in part because I have interrogated the
corset literature. I also use the word fetishism, which, according to
the league, causes “many innocent people [to] risk being branded
with a wholly undeserved stigma.”5 Conversely, some academics
believe that I am “pro-corset” (virtually an apologist for corset
torture) because I have pointed out that corsetry has erotic
associations and that its dangers have been much exaggerated. I
would like to stress, however, that I am neither for nor against any
particular item of clothing—and I am cognizant of the fact that
sartorial enthusiasm can have a variety of meanings.
The Votaries of Tight-Lacing
The corset, like the shoe, was one of the rst items of clothing to be
treated as a fetish, and it remains one of the most important fetish
fashions.6 But it is crucial to distinguish between ordinary
fashionable corsetry, as practiced by most nineteenth-century
women, and the very di erent minority practice of fetishistic tight-
lacing, which sometimes overlaps with sadomasochism and
transvestism. Although most Victorian women wore corsets, they
were not usually tight-lacers with 16-inch waists any more than
most women today wear fetish shoes with 7-inch heels.
The journalist Susan Faludi confuses fashion and fetishism when
she writes: “Victorian apparel merchants were the rst to mass-
market . . . lingerie, turning corsets into a ‘tight-lacing’ fetish.”7 But
there was never mass-market corset fetishism. Only a handful of
corset manufacturers catered to the fetishist market, producing
unusually small corsets for women—and men.
The corset has aroused more controversy than any other item of
clothing. There are two basic reasons: one medical, the other textual
—and sexual. It is beyond the scope of this book to analyze the
medical literature on corsetry, but a medical doctor, Lynn Kutsche,
and I have found that most claims of corset-induced disease are
either completely invalid or greatly exaggerated. There is also no
evidence for the popular idea that Victorian women had their ribs
removed. The use of textual sources has also been extremely naive.
Faludi, for example, writes:
In every backlash, the fashion industry has produced
punitively restrictive clothing and the fashion press has
demanded that women wear them. “If you want a girl to
grow up gentle and womanly in her ways and feelings, lace
her tight,” advised one of the many male testimonials to the
corset in the late Victorian press.8
The notorious advice to “lace her tight” has often been quoted as
“proof” that Victorian girls and women were forced to undergo
painful, “rib-crushing” tight-lacing as part of a deliberate policy of
female oppression. Yet this quotation comes from one of the most
suspect sources imaginable: the infamous “corset correspondence”
published in the Englishwoman’s Domestic Magazine.
Between 1867 and 1874, EDM printed hundreds of letters on
corsetry and tight-lacing, often with a pronounced sadomasochistic
tone. There were also related letters on topics such as whipping girls
and spurs for lady riders. Many historians have uncritically accepted
the bizarre accounts of tight-lacing in EDM as being evidence of
widespread corset torture during the Victorian era. Faludi, however,
apparently did not actually even read the EDM correspondence.
Instead, her main source for information on corsetry was my book
Fashion and Eroticism, from which she selectively drew the quotation
from MORALIST’S letter.9 I was therefore annoyed, although not
particularly surprised, to see how she either misunderstood or
willfully misinterpreted the evidence I presented.
To characterize MORALIST’S letter as among “the many male
testimonials to the corset in the late Victorian press” is extremely
misleading, since tight-lacing was almost universally anathematized
in the nineteenth century. The EDM letters and their successors are
highly unusual in defending the practice. Presented out of context,
the letter apparently links corsetry with women’s oppression. But if
the letter is read in conjunction with others of the same genre,
MORALIST’S enthusiasm takes on a very di erent signi cance.10
Certainly, the EDM correspondents had priorities very di erent
from those of the average Victorian woman. Their preoccupations
fall into three categories: (1) extreme body modi cation, which
involved wearing tight corsets day and night; (2) a sadomasochistic
delight in pain and an emphasis on erotic scenarios involving
dominance and submission; and (3) corsetry as an element in cross-
dressing. Fakir Musafar, also known as “the OP Corsetier,” is
probably the most famous corset enthusiast alive today. He says that
he learned about tight-lacing in part by reading sources like EDM,
which “had a pretty fetish-y concept going.”11
The self-proclaimed “votaries of tight-lacing” described
undergoing tight-lacing to extreme tenuity. Other “fetishist”
periodicals also claimed that young women were having their waists
reduced by as much as 10 inches. Nelly G., age fteen, was allegedly
reducing her waist from 20 to 16 inches by wearing a tight corset
day and night.12 Even more extreme was “Bertha G., Waist 11
Inches, Age 15,” who was sanctimoniously described as “A Child
Martyr.”13 If you mention these gures to modern audiences, they
gasp with horror. Already conditioned to believe in Scarlett O’Hara’s
( ctional) 16-inch waist, they seldom question even the most
extreme claims. Yet the tight-lacing letters are not necessarily true.
When I brought the male tight-lacer Pearl to the Costume Institute
of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, he was disappointed to nd that
few of the corsets we saw were as small as his own 19-inch stays.14

Tight-lacing, as illustrated in the Family Doctor, March 3, 1888. (Peter

Farrer Collection)
 Corsets were usually advertised as 18 to 30 inches. Larger corsets
of 31 to 36 inches were also widely available, and some
advertisements mention sizes of 37 inches and above. Of the
hundreds of corset advertisements I have examined, fewer than half
a dozen mention corsets of less than 18 inches. One advertisement
for “very small-waisted corsets” gives gures of 15 to 26 inches, and
may have been targeted at a tight-lacing clientele. The tiny waists
mentioned in sources like EDM were not at all typical of Victorian
women. Yet so notorious is the correspondence that an exhibition on
Victorian fashion at the Costume Institute of the Metropolitan
Museum of Art captioned a display of corsets with a quotation from
the EDM letters!
Given the extremes of human behavior, I cannot say that there
was never any such thing as a 16-inch waist. Indeed, I know from
contemporary evidence that waists smaller than that can and do
exist—as we will see. But the historical evidence shows that in the
past, as today, such waists were rare. It is, therefore, time to discard
the myth of the 16-inch waist as a touchstone for thinking about the
nineteenth-century woman.
In 1994, the magazine Verbal Abuse published an interview with
Pearl conducted by the dominatrix Mistress Angel Stern, who saw
“corsetry as a fetish for number and for measurement.” Pearl replied
that “the waist-size magic-number is eighteen. Any number below
eighteen becomes extremely potent—yes I would say magical.”15
Pearl’s idol, Fakir Musafar, a key gure in the world of body
modi cation,16 has identi ed “three basic types of people” who
wear corsets today. First, there are what he calls the “corset
nonconformists,” who want to “change the shape of the body... and
realize some kind of aesthetic ideal.” (This is, presumably, the
category in which he would place himself.) Second, there are the
“corset identi cationists,” who associate corsets with “femininity
and feminine undergarments.” They are not necessarily particularly
interested in “sculpting the body” (i.e., tight-lacing), “but by
wearing the corset they seemed to have a kind of gender
transformation.” (He does not say so speci cally, but many
transvestites fall into this category.) Third are the “corset
masochists,” who tight-lace “to create erotic discomfort.”17
Considerable overlap exists among these categories, and some
people do not t neatly into any one category. There are also, of
course, the followers of fashion—fewer today than in the nineteenth
century, but not to be discounted.
Pearl in a black corset, 1994. (Travis Hutchison)
 Fakir Musafar as The Perfect Gentleman. (Fakir Musafar and Body
Play)
Discipline and Punish
“One might imagine that in the world of SM roleplay, the corset
wearer is always the submissive, the slave,” writes Stephanie Jones.
But this is not true; the symbolism of the corset is more complex.
Some sadomasochists believe that leather corsets are only for
dominants and rubber corsets are only for submissives, but others
insist that corsets have no such “predetermined sexual ‘colour.’ “The
meaning of the corset is contexual and constructed: “The dominatrix
wears her corset as armour, its extreme and rigid curvature the
ultimate sexual taunt at the slave who may look but not touch....
The slave, on the other hand, is corsetted as punishment.”18 The
corseted dominatrix looks and feels “inpenetrable.” By contrast, the
corset for the slave both signi es and enforces a sense of
“discipline” and “bondage.” Because of this, the corset is often used
in “the transformation of male into she-male.” It simultaneously
grati es his wish to look like a woman, while punishing him and
thus assuaging his sense of guilt.19
The erotic appeal of the corset may be related to “the mystery of
woman,” suggests sex worker Alexis DeVille. “All I know is if I wear
a corset in a scene, it gets better results with a slave than if I’m not
wearing it.”20 For “masochists,” though, “even a moderately laced
corset has a marvellously negative e ect on the mobility, balance,
and physical stability of its wearer.” An article by Fakir Musafar on
safe corseting techniques for sadomasochists emphasizes, however,
that “a corset is a piece of equipment, with safety and quality
requirements, just like many other pieces of SM equipment.... There
are a few cautions to observe when doing SM scenes with tight
corsets.”21
Neither the word slave nor sadomasochist occurs in the
nineteenth-century fetish literature, but many of the EDM letters
contain references to “discipline,” “con nement,” “compulsion,”
“su ering,” “pain,” “torture,” “agony,” “submission,” and “the
victim.” A small waist size alone was not enough for some
correspondents, who argued that “half the charm of a small waist
comes, not in spite of, but on account of its being tight-laced”—“the
tighter the better.” “Well-applied restraint is in itself attractive.”22
(This was extremely unusual within the wider Victorian culture,
where the “naturally” small waist was greatly preferred to its
corseted facsimile.)

“S. M. with about a 15-inch waist.” (Peter Farrer Collection)

 Some votaries, like ALFRED, sadistically imagined female
victims:
There is something to me extraordinarily fascinating in the
thought that a young girl has for many years been subjected
to the strictest discipline of the corset. If she has su ered, as
I have no doubt she has, great pain... from their extreme
pressure, it must be quite made up to her by the admiration
her gure excites.23
But it was also common for correspondents to imagine men and
boys who were forced to tight-lace at the hands of dominant
women. Others were inspired to torture and victimize themselves.
One man wrote to Modern Society in 1909, “I was persuaded... to get
a pair of corsets by a ‘Tortured Victim’ with a waist of seventeen
inches.”24
Kra t-Ebing described one man who enjoyed the “pain of tight-
lacing, experienced by himself or induced in women.”25 Wilhelm
Stekel, another major sexologist writing in the early twentieth
century, described several such cases, including a “respectable”
married man who tight-laced, cross-dressed, and wore women’s
high-heeled shoes that were so tight he limped: “It actually
appeared as if physical pain were an integral part of his bliss and he
gloated in it as long as it were caused by some feminine article of
apparel.” He had also
collected all the literature that had been written for and
against [tight-lacing]. He often tried to lace himself so
tightly that he would faint but in this he was unsuccessful.
 He even succeeded in persuading his wife to lace herself
closely and tied her corset tighter every day himself until
her waistline had been reduced about six inches. This also
grati ed him sexually.26
A thirty-six-year-old policeman who consulted Stekel also wore
corsets and “masturbate[d] before a mirror with the fantasy that he
is the woman he saw.” The policeman had lled a scrapbook with
pictures of corsets clipped from newspapers and overlaid with
obscene sketches and marginal notes: “Ha! what a thrill to disrobe
such an insanely corseted woman and then rape her ( rst her corset
would split in the struggle).” Stekel referred to this volume as the
fetishist’s “Bible,” and drew attention to the contrast between the
man’s Christian and celibate life and his “hellish” fantasies.27
Pain and compression were frequently juxtaposed in the EDM
letters with references to the “fascinating,” “delightful,” “delicious,”
“superb,” “exquisite,” and “pleasurable” sensations supposedly
a orded by tight-lacing. Pain and pleasure were not the only issues,
however. Dominance and submission were at least as important.
Hence the many stories about forced tight-lacing.
The French Mistress
Some of the earliest and most in uential corset letters placed the
site of tight-lacing at boarding school. NORA, for example, wrote:
I was placed at the age of fteen in a fashionable school in
London, and there it was the custom for the waists of the
pupils to be reduced one inch per month until they were
what the lady principal considered small enough. When I
 left school at seventeen, my waist measured only thirteen
inches, it having been formerly twenty-three inches in
circumference. Every morning one of the maids used to
come to assist us to dress, and a governess superintended to
see that our corsets were drawn as tight as possible.28
In order to assess the signi cance of such accounts, it is necessary to
look at a number of the letters side by side and analyze the language
used.
As I wrote in my rst book, the scenarios are often similar: Girls
are undisciplined or uncorseted for years, perhaps because their
“relatives” are “abroad.” But the situation changes suddenly, and
they are forced to submit to a cruel corset discipline. A dream-like
vagueness of narrative is interrupted at key points by a minutely
detailed focus on the speci cs of corsetry. As FANNY wrote,
Up to the age of fteen, I was... su ered to run... wild....
Family circumstances and change of fortune... led my
relatives to the conclusion that my education required a
continental nish.... I was packed o to a highly genteel and
fashionable establishment for ladies, situated in the suburbs
of Paris... [where] I was subjected to the strict and rigid
system of lacing.29
Sometimes the girls rebel or beg for mercy, but they are forced
to submit.30The stories became increasingly salacious as the
nineteenth century wore on, and should really be considered in
conjunction with the related correspondence on corporal
punishment. Just as the best methods of tight-lacing are debated at
length (are handcu s or locked corsets useful?), so do
correspondents argue whether it is best to strap a girl across the
“horse” or chain her to the ceiling, to leave her underwear on or
strip her naked. Many of the tight-lacing letters recount scenarios
that could easily have been part of a pornographic novel, and any
temptation to feel indignant about historical tight-lacing at real
schools gives way to the belief that these letters need to be analyzed
as sexual fantasies.
 “A fashionable young lady being ‘drawn-in’... by a buxom maid,
superintended by her mistress ...” Illustration by Annette Laring from
London Life, March 30, 1929. (Shelfmark: Cup 701a5, British
Library)
One letter described what happened to WASP-WAIST when she
rebelled against being laced smaller than 18 inches:
The French mistress, on hearing this, became very angry, for
it was her special business to see that all the girls should
have wasp waists. I then received a punishment which
thoroughly subdued me, and it most certainly did me a lot
of good. The weight of my body was suspended from my
wrists, which were fastened above my head, while my feet,
which were encased in tight, high-heeled boots, were
fastened to a ring in the oor. In this position, only
protected by my stays, I received a severe whipping across
the back, which gave me intense pain, but left no mark,
owing to my being tightly laced. After this castigation I was
very humble, but before the French mistress would untie my
hands, she reduced the size of my waist to fteen inches.31
The frequent appearance of Mademoiselle, the “French mistress” or
French governess, is probably signi cant. Although it is true that
most English girls’ schools did teach the French language, the
appearance of Frenchwomen in these letters might better be
understood as ful lling an important fantasy role.32 Some of the
cross-dressing letters also described the importance of the “clever
French maid” who helped transform the male protagonist into a
female character.33
A number of correspondents set their stories in foreign cities,
usually Paris and Vienna. Some claimed to have attended foreign
schools; others, to have seen tight-laced men and women on the
street. “In France one often sees slender-waisted women,” wrote A
TRAVELLER. “In Vienna tight-lacing is de rigeur”34 A front-page article
in the Family Doctor on “National Waists” recalled how, during the
Victorian period, “the cultivation of the wasp-waist was carried to
much greater lengths on the Continent—notably in Vienna and Paris
—than in England.”35
Why were Paris and Vienna chosen as the sites of tight-lacing? In
part, probably, simply because they were foreign, and strange things
may occur in distant places, where, moreover, most readers would
not have traveled. There is no external evidence to support the
belief that tight-lacing ourished in France and Austria. But English
people might have fantasized about the Continent at a time when
French kisses, French letters, and French dresses had a special
cachet.
The enthusiasm for Vienna has a narrower and more obviously
fetishistic history and seems to be directly traceable to the famously
small waist of the Empress Elizabeth of Austria (1837-1898)—and to
one particular letter to EDM, which we will describe later.
According to a modern biography, the Empress Elizabeth had a
waist measuring 19.5 inches. At 5 feet, 7.5 inches, she weighed only
110 pounds. She was obsessed with dieting, exercise, and tight-
lacing.36 Elizabeth retains prestige even today among corset
enthusiasts.
There is no reliable external evidence that tight-lacing boarding
schools actually existed, no reportage in reputable newspapers like
the Times on corset torture at girls’ schools. Not a single letter names
a particular school. The stories, moreover, are often inherently
improbable. It is possible, for example, that no one would notice the
presence of a cross-dressed boy at a girls’ boarding school, but
unlikely.37 The internal evidence, both within individual letters and
within the fetishist correspondence as a genre, reveals
contradictions as well as improbabilities. As correspondents compete
with one another, the stories get progressively wilder. It was also
not uncommon for correspondents to plagiarize earlier stories,
presenting the material as their own experience. In 1933, for
example, London Life printed a letter entitled “Should Girls Tight-
Lace?” that was a copy of a letter published in Modern Society in
1909.
Even when elements of a particular story are plausible, fantastic
details are superimposed. The “governess” at “Madame La B——‘s
school just outside Paris” wrote to Society in 1899 to describe
“Tight-Lacing and the Latest Craze,” that of having one’s “tetons”
pierced by “jewelers in the Rue St. Honoré.” Some people do pierce
their nipples, of course, and this was a popular topic in 1899 among
correspondents to Society. But when the “governess” says that the
practice had been described in La Vie parisienne and in “a recent
román,” I cannot help wondering if she is just repeating an idea that
she read about. Nor is it likely that the breast-rings in her pierced
nipples, together with “the friction of my lingerie,” had caused her
bust to grow.38
Pornographic stories are often described as taking place in
institutional settings, such as schools, army barracks, and prisons,
because these provide a framework involving uniforms, hierarchy,
and punishment. It is not uncommon, however, for people to act out
their sexual fantasies. Thus, while I very much doubt whether tight-
lacing and cross-dressing boarding schools really existed for
children, I think that adult fetishists may well have created this type
of setting for themselves. In 1910, Photo Bits mentioned “Miss P.B.’s
Select Academy for Waist Culture and the Art of Walking in High
Heels.”39 Was this a real school, a fantasy, or something in between?
I have read the prospectus of a contemporary English “school” for
adult fetishists: “MISS PRIM’S REFORM ACADEMY [is] a school for naughty
boys and girls age 21 or over... including ‘boys who would be girls.’
“Students can sign up for weekends or longer, and have to purchase
uniforms (“allow 30 plus days”), including navy blue gym slips (“tell
us if for a TV or girl”), knickers, and so on.40 At the Torture Garden,
I talked to a man who said that he had visited a similar
establishment. New York also has Miss Vera’s Finishing School for
Boys Who Want to Be Girls, also known as the Academy. Miss Vera
is the Dean of Students; her friend Miss Dana is Dean of High Heels.
Fees ranged from $300 for a private two-hour session (a tutorial?) to
$2,000 for a “weekend getaway.”41
 National waists, as illustrated in the Family Doctor, April 7, 1888.
(Peter Farrer Collection)
Faludi quotes MORALIST (“lace her tight”), while Kunzle prefers
STAYLACE (“the sensation of being tightly laced... is superb”). But why
should we believe that the EDM letters are strictly factual at all? It is
well recognized that many of the letters in present-day sex
magazines are made up by the editors, while others represent
heavily ctionalized versions of personal experiences. Not all letters
signed with female names are actually written by women; indeed,
there is a long tradition in pornography of rst-person female
accounts that were penned by male authors—John Cleland’s Fanny
Hill, for example. Moreover, if modern psychiatrists are correct in
insisting that the majority of fetishists are male, then many of the
corset correspondents were probably men.
In 1899, A WOMAN OF FIFTY wrote to Society to describe her
experiences at a “fashionable nishing school” in the early 1860s,
during “one of the periodic cycles of tight-lacing, as may be
gathered from the correspondence which appeared in ‘The
Englishwoman’s Domestic Magazine’ about this time.” She went on
to refer to many of the cult elements that played a role in the
fetishist literature. There was the ritualistic invocation of the sexy
and sadistic “mistress” of the tight-lacing nishing school, which
was populated by perverse but aristocratic young ladies and
occasionally men dressed as women. The ubiquitous French
governess, Mademoiselle de Beauvoir, appeared with a “13-inch
waist,” although otherwise “plump.” “Birching... was an openly
recognized punishment.” Breast-rings—the current enthusiasm
among a number of correspondents to Society—were worn by “three
French girls, daughters of a marquise.”42
As I wrote in my rst book, I do not doubt that real fetishists did
many of the things they described in their letters: tight-laced, had
themselves pierced and whipped, cross-dressed. But I doubt whether
they did so under the circumstances that they described: at the
tight-lacing boarding school, in the bosom of the aristocratic
fetishist family, and at the hands of Mademoiselle de Beauvoir.
Men in Corsets
Another very important theme in the fetishist literature was the use
of tight-laced corsets by men. WALTER wrote to the Englishwoman’s
Domestic Magazine in November 1867:
I was early sent to school in Austria, where lacing is not
considered ridiculous in a gentleman as in England, and I
objected in a thoroughly English way when the doctor’s wife
required me to be laced. I was not allowed any choice,
however. A sturdy madchen was stoically deaf to my
remonstrances, and speedily laced me up tightly in a
fashionable Viennese corset.... [A]nd the daily lacing tighter
and tighter produced inconvenience and absolute pain. In a
few months, however, I was as anxious as any of my ten or
twelve companions to have my corsets laced as tightly as a
pair of strong arms could draw them.43
WALTER’S letter cannot be taken at face value. If its manifest content
deals with male corset-wearing at the tight-lacing boarding school,
its latent content seems to be an erotic fantasy about a boy
overpowered by dominant women (“the doctor’s wife” and a “sturdy
mädchen”) and forced, against his will, to wear an article of female
underclothing. But soon, pain gives way to pleasure in the embrace
of a tight corset, while the ignominy of cross-dressing is obviated by
its normalization in an alien culture. It is important to emphasize
that most men in the nineteenth century did not wear corsets. Men’s
corsets and belts did exist, however. In the 1820s, in particular,
dandies sometimes wore corsets (boned and laced in back) in order
to achieve a fashionable hourglass gure—although one must
beware of being too credulous about the evidence o ered in
caricatures. The Workwoman’s Guide of 1838 says that men’s stays
were used in the army, for hunting, and for strenuous exercise.
According to a modern historian, these stays were often just “a strip
or belt of material, as they did not have to contend with female
curves.”44 WALTER, however, advocated not belts, but strongly boned
women’s corsets. In 1909, a male tight-lacer who signed himself
WALTER (perhaps in honor of EDMs correspondent) wrote, “I advise
all your male readers to beg, borrow, or steal a pair of their sister’s
(or wife’s) corsets and put them on.”45
The idea of corseted men horri ed many correspondents; even
votaries like LA GENIE, who approved of (enforced) tight-lacing for
girls, insisted that he did not wear stays himself—“rather a
disgusting idea.”46 Sometimes men’s corsets were justi ed on the
grounds of health, such as a bad back.47 ANTI-CORPULENCE
recommended corsets for “stout” men.48 A STAIDMAN asked, “Why this
prejudice against gentlemen wearing stays?”49
In 1886, when A LOVER OF STAYS wrote to the Family Doctor to
describe how much he enjoyed wearing tight-laced corsets, MARY
BROWN responded: “I think ‘Lover of Stays’ must be a very e eminate
man... that wishes he was a female.... [D]oubtless he would like to
go about in a gown and petticoats and pass himself o for a
woman.”50 This triggered a number of letters from men who
corseted and/or cross-dressed. “Although not a member of the stay-
wearing sex, I have worn stays myself for upwards of ten years,”
wrote one man.51
 There are too many corset letters from men to cite more than a
few key themes, but the issue of female domination is conspicuous.
Both BROUGHT UP AS A GIRL and A WOULD BE LADY wrote to the Family
Doctor to say that they had been raised by aunts who forced them to
cross-dress—a scenario for which there is some supporting
evidence.52 More dubious are the stories about wives who force
their husbands to tight-lace and cross-dress. When SATIN STAYS, for
example, married “a lady considerably my senior... whose
exquisitely slender waist and pretty stilted shoes engaged my
fancy... she obliged me to sign a document” committing him to
satisfy her “in my manner of dress.... This I willingly did, never
dreaming what it would lead to.”53 (But I think we can guess.)
Contemporary studies of transvestites and their wives, however,
emphasize that it is the men who choose to cross-dress.
 Adverteisment fot Madame Dowding’s Corsets in Society, October 21,
1899. (Shelfmark: N.2288.c.21, Bodleian Library, Oxford University)
RETIRED COLONEL claimed that “in America [men’s corsets] are
quite common, and boys wear them the same as girls; hence, no
doubt, the ne carriage of American youths and... men.”54 But most
correspondents focused on the German-speaking male—especially
the Austrian or Prussian military man. Although the Austrian army
was not an impressive war machine, the Austro-Hungarian Empire
did have a plethora of spectacular-looking uniforms, which were
often imitated at fancy-dress balls in France and England. Thus,
English fetishists of WALTER’S generation might well have been
familiar with these clothes. Moreover, the Prussian (and later the
German) army was extremely powerful. “It is well known that very
many Prussian o cers wear stays,” wrote REFORMER, adding that
“nothing becomes a man or boy so well as the erectness produced
by wearing stays.”55 In this letter, as in many others, the phallic
symbolism associated with corsets and tight- tting military
uniforms was juxtaposed with transvestite elements (petticoats and
earrings).
“Size 13—on my honor Herr Baron, we seldom see that here in Berlin.”
(From Die Mode in der Karikatur 1855)
Uniform fetishism was (and remains) a signi cant subcategory of
clothing fetishism, that is often associated with fantasies of
dominance and submission. The cross-dresser who socializes with
military o cers was a popular theme in the fetishist letters. “For a
bet in Vienna I once dined with several o cers dressed in evening
dress... and laced into I6V2 inches,” wrote BROUGHT UP AS A GIRL.56 “I
think it’s horrid of men to wear corsets,” wrote A KENSINGTON BELLE
disingenuously (after boasting of her own 16-inch waist), “but my
brother who is in the Guards tells me a lot do. I know he does. Last
Autumn he won a large bet by dining, in female attire, in company
with a brother o cer.”57 In 1909, Modern Society printed a series of
letters, “Slaves of the Stay-Lace,” from correspondents like DORA,
who said that her Hungarian maid had previously worked for an
Austrian o cer who tight-laced and wore 4-inch heels.58 SMALL WAIST
claimed that “corset-wearing in Vienna by the male sex is quite
common.”59 In “The Recollections of a Corsetiere,” the narrator
searches Europe for tiny waists, and in Vienna he meets “a laced-in
lieutenant,” who not only wore a “long military corset” but whose
“uniforms were tted with long corset steels to ensure a perfect
smooth t.” The lieutenant also cross-dressed.60
An essay on discipline in an Austrian gymnasium of 1930 reveals
the di culties inherent in studying fetishist literature. The author
begins with quotations from WALTER. Then, in a rambling and often
incoherent account, he suggests that the Germans (including the
Nazis) were virile and corset-hating antifetishists, while the tight-
laced Austrians were e eminate corset fetishists. Yet Hitler is
presented as “one of the most successful fetishists the world has ever
seen,” albeit de cient in the necessary virtue of hypocrisy. Since the
United States is “like Austria and England, a rather well-corsetted
country,” the author gives it “a good prognosis for successful world
domination.”61 Needless to say, this bizarre tract presents no
reliable evidence about actual historical tight-lacing in Austrian
schools, although it does o er some insight into the way the corset
has functioned as a lightning rod for other concerns.
Some men did (and do) wear corsets, however. The earliest
advertisement for men’s corsets that I have seen dates from 1899
and illustrates several models, ranging from sleeping and hunting
belts to long and heavily boned corsets with military names such as
“The Marlborough” and “The Carlton.” It appeared in a periodical,
Society, that also published an extensive fetishist correspondence.
There are very few men’s corsets in museum collections, although at
the Kyoto Costume Institute I examined an “Apollo brand” English
corset, made of sturdy beige-colored cloth with “Spartan steels,”
from the later nineteenth century.
The London Life League, based in Montreal, o ers support to
men and women alike who enjoy wearing corsets. The league’s
mimeographed newsletters and corsetry education notes stress that
“the appreciation and wearing of corsets transcends gender . . . . The
modern male should be the proud heir to a dynasty of experience,
rst recorded by the bull-leaping Minoan male, and continuing
down to the svelte Edwardian dandy and military o cer.” They
admit that corseted men risk “adverse comment” and recommend a
combination of personal discretion and public education. Travelers
are advised, for example, that electronic metal-detection devices at
airports can be set o by a well-steeled corset; if this occurs, it may
be wise to imply that it is for “orthopedic” purposes.62
Cross-dressers (often middle-aged married men) sometimes wear
corsets in private. A few men privately wear what are called “penis
corsets,” tubes of leather and/or rubber that lace down the middle.
Sometimes they also wear “neck corsets.” More signi cant from the
point of view of fashion are the “club kids” (especially young gay
men) who recently have begun to wear corsets openly and as
outerwear.
Unfashionable Fetishism
The corset began to disappear from women’s fashion as early as
1907, when the avant-garde French couturier Paul Poiret introduced
a neoclassical style of dress. By 1910, younger and thinner women
began replacing the boned corset with a rubber girdle and brassiere,
while older and stouter women shifted to a long straight corset. Was
it a case of “The Vanishing Waist?” asked Photo Bits:
I have just read... that “There will be no small waists this
season and absolutely no hips....” A shuddering sigh comes
up from my over-charged heart. I can scarcely realise the
meaning of this latest edict of fashion. The swelling bosom,
the divine waist of few inches . . . the rounded hips—are to
 go! Heaven forbid! In one respect, they will not go, but they
will be hidden from our sight.63
The writer consoled himself with the thought that “nobody laces
tighter than the Lancashire millgirl. Good luck to her! She
represents the people” In a last-ditch defense, he wildly claimed that
someone had told him that there were “signs of a rapid return to
extreme ‘wasp’ waists and that scores who are ‘in the know’ are
secretly practicing the most rigorous tight corsets.” But he was
clearly kidding himself.
In 1910, Photo Bits published several special “Tiny Waist”
numbers, one of which envisioned the possible founding of a Corset
Club and a Minoan League to promote male tight-lacing. Another
proclaimed: “13 Inches—the Ideal.” A serial story of male tight-
lacing, “The Pearl of Picadilly,” recounted “The Adventures of a
Wasp Waist,” a man who wore a 13-inch crimson corset. There was
also an essay, “The Cult of the Corset,” and a story entitled “The
Hunt for the Thirteen-Inch Waist.”64
But enthusiasts increasingly placed the golden age of tight-lacing
in the Victorian past. The waist sizes described also shrank. The
author of “The Vogue of the Wasp-Waist” looked back nostalgically
to Victorian waists of 10 and even 9 inches,65 although one
correspondent expressed disbelief “in waists much smaller than my
own.”66 In 1933, A WORSHIPPER OF WASP-WAISTS wrote to London Life:
Dear Sir,—Like Diabolo, I, too, am a lover of tiny waists for
the fair sex. I cannot understand why a man should be
thought abnormal for preferring to see a woman tightly
 corsetted, seeing that the Victorian male was an ardent
worshipper of the wasp-waist, which was then, of course,
universal.
I am only 27 years old, and am beginning to wonder
whether I have not been born thirty years too late, as I see
much more sex-appeal in a womanly gure obtained by
clever corsetting than in the so-called “natural” gures of
today.
A friend tells me, however, that in Paris today there are
still to be found many women who display a tiny waist, and
consequently I am determined to spend a week or two soon
in nding whether this is true.
Perhaps some of your readers who are interested could
give me information through your columns.67
Thus, although the corset had essentially disappeared from fashion
(replaced by the brassiere and girdle), it retained its central place in
the fetishist pantheon. The tight-laced actress Polaire, whose tiny
waist was featured in Tatler and Photo Bits in 1909, was recalled
again in London Life in 1937.68
The modern Venus, as shown in Photo Bits, 1910.
 Fetish illustration, mid-twentieth century.
The most famous modern tight-lacer is undoubtedly Ethel
Granger, of Peterborough, England, who reduced her waist over a
period of years from 23 to 13 inches. A small woman of 5 feet, 3
inches and weighing only about 100 pounds, she began corseting in
1928, under the in uence of her husband, “arch fetishist” Will
Granger, who wrote and had privately printed a biography of his
wife. Chapters titles include “Ethel Makes a Dainty Wife,” “What a
Little Love Will Do,” “High-Heeled and Happy,” “Nose Rings,”
“Torture Tools,” “Pierced Tits,” and “Thirteen Inches—At Last!”69
Will Granger was obsessed with body modi cation from an early
age (although he only brie y experimented with wearing a corset
himself). Clearly the dominant gure in their marriage, he not only
pressured his wife to tight-lace, but also pierced her body in thirteen
places. Her motives for going along with this are opaque, although
people who knew her say that she enjoyed it, too. Will’s obsession
with tight-lacing was such that he was extremely annoyed when
Ethel’s obstetrician insisted that she stop lacing during her
pregnancies. She herself became disillusioned with tight-lacing
during the war years, but Will induced her to begin again in 1946,
and by the late 1950s, she was back down to 13 inches.70
Ethel Granger, “The World’s Smallest Waist.” (Fakir Musafar and Body
Play)
“Fashions Change and So Do We,” wrote Will Granger, but, in
fact, his dedication to corsetry was largely distinct from fashion. A
fashionable phenomenon like the “waspy” girdle of the 1950s di ers
signi cantly from hard-core fetish activity. Although the Grangers’
“body play” was initially secretive, they eventually became cult
gures within the world of enthusiasts. Ethel was written up in the
press in 1957 and 1959 and again in 1968, when the Associated
Press published photographs of her 13-inch waist. Finally, she
entered the Guinness Book of World Records as having the “World’s
Smallest Waist,” which information her husband also had printed on
her passport. The publicity attending Ethel Granger’s body sculpting
e ectively valorized the procedure for a number of people. Ethel
died in 1982, a few years after her husband, having tight-laced
almost to the end.71
Tight-Lacing Today
Corsetry is “very erotic,” says Fakir Musafar, today’s most famous
corset enthusiast. “Helpless women with small waists is [sic] a
sexual turn-on for men”—and women, too, “if they adjust... to this
body training.” Corsetry “enhances sexual experiences. There’s
nothing like being extremely tight-laced yourself as a male and
making love to a woman who’s extremely tight-laced... all your
internal organs and your sexual components are in di erent
positions, with di erent tensions and so on—there’s a mechanical
basis for this. It’s very ecstatic.”72
He brought his own waist down from 29 to 19 inches back in the
1950s, inspired by both the Englishwoman’s Domestic Magazine and
National Geographic. These two sources of inspiration are re ected in
his two primary forms of self-presentation: as a “Modern Primitive”
and as the “Perfect Gentleman.” In the 1950s and 1960s, Fakir
Musafar established a corset business, but there were not enough
clients to make it pro table, so he sold the company to the owners
of BR Creations, who by the 1980s employed three women to make
corsets. “They’re selling to straight people now, not just the kinky
circuit,” mused Fakir Musafar. “Like bridal salons—it’s amazing
where they’re selling these things. They ran an ad in the New York
Times and got a ton of orders.”73
Pearl is an English tight-lacer with a 19-inch waist. “Is it a
fetish?” I asked. “Maybe,” said Pearl. “It is a sensual experience
wearing corsets... I don’t involve my interest in a sexual practice,
though.” Like many enthusiasts, Pearl grew up in a very religious
family, and his interest in corsets dates from his early childhood. “I
lived with my grandmother when I was two or three, and she wore
a corset every day, because she dislocated her spine when she was
young. I used to help her lace it up. It was beautifully made, pink,
always pink, that beautiful peach pink satin.”
 Pearl, a modern tight-lacer. (Travis Hutchison)
“I’m not doing this to try to be like a woman,” says Pearl.
(Photographer Travis Hutchison agrees, and says that he feels “very
masculine” wearing the corset that Pearl designed for him.) For
Pearl, tight-lacing is “about control of yourself. Clothes need to be
more disciplinary.” Although he nds corsets “comfortable,” what
he likes is the feeling of “restriction” and the idea that “the garment
brings with it certain rules; you can’t do certain things. You can’t
slouch. If I don’t put a corset on, it doesn’t feel right. I don’t like to
walk barefoot, either. I like my leather shoes. I sleep in my corset,
or in a belt, because it’s best to feel it always being controlled. It
makes me feel better.”74
Pearl introduced me to a woman who tight-laces. After we had a
long interview on the telephone, I visited Cathie J. and her husband
at their home in the northeastern United States. A middle-aged
American housewife, Cathie can lace as small as 15 inches. (This
measurement is an estimate of her waist size underneath the corset,
and assumes that the corset adds another 2 inches, giving an outside
measurement of about 17 inches.) On a day-to-day basis, her waist
measures 18 or 19 inches on the outside of her corset. She is 5 feet,
6 inches tall and weighs about 130 pounds. To achieve such a small
waist, she wears her corset twenty four hours a day, taking it o
only to bathe, and this, in turn, has permanently a ected her
body.75
Cathie is married to a surgeon. “There’s a rumor going around
that he has taken out my ribs!” (“It’s not necessary,” her husband
says, “the ribs are very exible.”) X-rays of her torso appear to show
a modi cation of the lower ribs and possibly a lengthening of the
space between spinal rings. She is con dent, however, that he
would never insist that she do anything medically dangerous.
Her husband has had a lifelong interest in corsets. When they
rst began dating, thirty years ago, he encouraged her to wear
corsets on special occasions. For their wedding day, he had a corset
custom made. Cathie had “no problem” with her husband’s interest
in corsets: “It was just something he liked.” She wore corsets
occasionally after that, mostly in the evenings. Then about nine or
ten years ago, with their children grown up, she and her husband
got to know some corset enthusiasts in England and Germany, and
became more involved in tight-lacing.
“It was easier for me to leave a corset on all the time.” As she
explained, “some people like that sudden pressure” that comes when
you are rapidly laced up. (Will Granger apparently used to lace
Ethel occasionally in front of visitors so tightly and so rapidly that
she blacked out.) Cathie, however, did not like that dizzy feeling
and preferred to lace continually; she usually laces her own corset
using a hook and a doorknob to keep tension on the laces.
 Cathie J., with a 15-inch waist. (Fakir Musafar and Body Play)
“When you try to get smaller there is some discomfort, I don’t
know if you would call it ‘pain,’ “she says. There is more of a
problem with “cha ng sensitive skin,” occasionally to the point of
causing “a blister or minor wound.” Her husband “enjoys the visual
appearance of corsetry, the way it enhances the gure,” Cathie says.
“I’ve always liked it,” he adds. (His mother never corseted.)
Although the sight of a corseted woman is “sexually stimulating for
him,” Cathie says that she herself does “not get any great sensual
feeling from wearing a corset.” It is no more pleasant than wearing
any other nice lingerie, she says, not even as sensual as satin.
“My interest is to please my husband,” she says, estimating that
“ninety-nine percent of the time, women wear a corset because their
husband or signi cant other likes it. At least that’s true of my
generation.” She knows one thirty-something couple in Germany,
where, when the man suggested that his girlfriend wear a corset, she
said, “If you expect me to do it, then you have to do it, too.” So now
they both tight-lace.
“Corsetting is frequently a couples’ phenomenon,” notes a recent
study. “Our research suggests that among vanilla couples who enjoy
corsetting, the wives often become converted to the aesthetic under
the husbands’ in uence.” (In other words, among heterosexual
couples where the man is not a cross-dresser and where neither
partner is involved in sadomasochism, the husband is the one with
an interest in corsets.) As Cathie told the authors of that study, “If
I’d been married to somebody else who wasn’t interested in
[corsets], it’s not something that I would have picked up. And if he
said tomorrow that he wasn’t interested anymore, it wouldn’t be a
problem for me.”76 But she modi ed this statement slightly when
we talked: “If he died, I would probably still wear a corset, but
maybe not to the extreme. After you’ve been doing it for a long
time, your body gets used to a corset. Now if I leave my corset o
for more than a few hours, my back aches. I need the support.”
Besides, all her clothes are custom made to t a corseted gure. “If I
stopped wearing a corset, I wouldn’t have anything to wear!”
 “Some people try to equate it with bondage or body
modi cation,” says Cathie, “but that’s not our bag.” She rmly
distanced herself from the corset enthusiasts who were into “kinky”
things such as cross-dressing men wearing corsets. She does think,
however, that “the reasons for wearing a corset are more diverse for
men.” The Fakir, for example, is “doing it to test limits.” Cathie also
knows a few single women in their twenties who wear corsets
because they “just like the look. It’s popular as a fashion statement.”
These younger women tend to wear their corsets “on the outside of
their clothes,” sometimes in conjunction with other fetish styles like
leather and latex.
Cathie and Pearl introduced me to Lauren, a twenty seven-year-
old woman who wears a 19-inch corset. “I like the way it feels,” said
Lauren, “like someone’s holding me. And I love the way it looks.”
Unlike Cathie, who tight-laces for her husband’s pleasure, Lauren
insists, “I wear a corset for myself, not for my mate.” She compares
tight-lacing to ballet: “Ballet is culturally acceptable and corsets
aren’t, but in both cases you train the body. Ballet is hard on the
feet, but the result is accepted as being beautiful.”
Tight-lacing, like ballet, is “about strength and grace,” says
Lauren. “It’s feminine but very strong. I’d love to dispel the myths
about corsets. I have no health problems. You just need to do it in a
healthy way and allow your body to adjust. The only problem I have
is if I don’t exercise, then I get a weak feeling.” “How do you feel
about the new fashion corsets?” I ask. Lauren pauses. “It’s hard for
me. Part of me wants to say, ‘please, this is a lifestyle, not a fashion.’
But it’s worth it if someone comes to a better understanding about
corsets.”77
As corsetry has become semi-fashionable, Cathie has noticed a
signi cant change in the corset balls she attends. The rst ball, in
England, consisted of about twenty heterosexual couples: the men in
tuxedos, the women in elegant evening dresses worn over corsets.
Recent balls, such as the 1994 corset ball in Vienna, have drawn a
larger and more mixed crowd, including male cross-dressers and
women wearing corsets as outerwear.
Corsets in Vogue
When the corset reappeared in fashion, Vivienne Westwood was one
of the rst designers to exploit the charisma of the forbidden. “It is
her corset, rst seen pushing breasts up into a ripe cleavage in 1985,
that has been her most signi cant contribution in the last ten years,”
declared Vogue.78 Westwood was inspired by eighteenth-century
stays, rather than the more familiar Victorian hourglass corset:
“Fashion always requires something new yet draws from the past.”79
Although her corsets are visually powerful, they are not very
structured. As Pearl says, “They are plastic and quite lightweight so
they appeal to a younger way of thinking about comfort. They don’t
lace up, they just zip up.”
 Lauren, with a 19-inch waist. (Aaron Cobbett)
It is precisely the lacing, however, that has attracted many other
designers. As early as the 1950s, French couturier Jacques Fath had
created a pink satin evening dress with corset lacing up the back. In
the exhibition “Infra-Apparel” at the Costume Institute of the
Metropolitan Museum of Art, curators Richard Martin and Harold
Koda juxtaposed Fath’s gown with contemporary garments, such as
a corset bathing suit by the Italian design house Fendi.
The French designer Jean-Paul Gaultier is probably most
notorious for having designed Madonna’s shell-pink, lace-up satin
corset with projectile breasts. His in uential spring 1987 collection
featured a number of corsets, girdles, and brassieres. He has also
created several rubber corset dresses with lacing all the way up the
back—a style already utilized in pornographic photography of the
1930s. Gaultier has also designed a variety of jackets (for men as
well as women) that lace up like corsets.
“The rst fetish I did was a corset,” recalls Gaultier. “That was
because of my grandmother.” As a child, he frequently lived with
her, and he remembers nding a salmon-colored, lace-up corset in
her closet: “I thought, ‘My God, what is that?’... Later I saw her
wearing it and she asked me to tighten it.” She told him about tight-
lacing at the turn of the century, and he was “fascinated” by what
he regarded as “one of the secrets.”80 Gaul tier’s perfume is
packaged in a bottle shaped like one of his corsets.
Ever since the mid-1980s, corsets have been a recurrant theme in
contemporary fashion. The French fashion designer Thierry Mugler
is particularly important because he has made the corset an integral
part of his theatrical femme fatale designs. Never afraid to go over
the top, Mugler has shown aggressive corsets with spiked breasts
and leather corsets with attachments that closely resemble nipple
rings. He has also done glittery evening corsets, structured plastic
bustiers that echo Roman body armor (adapted to the female torso),
and numerous other corset/bra/bustier styles. Mugler has also
incorporated corset seaming into other garments, such as black
leather jackets.
Azzadine Alai’a, the Tunisian-born designer who works in Paris,
has also used corsetry in his work. In 1991, for example, he showed
leopard-skin-patterned corsets and stockings. In 1992, he created
very beautiful leather corsets in red and dusty rose, as well as
accessories such as purses that were shaped like little corsets. When
not designing corsets, as such, Alai’a has often favored wide,
cinched leather belts. Betsey Johnson, an American who creates
inexpensive, body-conscious styles for younger women, and the
French designer Chantal Thomass, who is known for her lingerie
fashions, both design corsets. Couturiers like Christian Lacroix,
Ungaro, and Valentino create glamorous and expensive corsets.

Corset and lingerie-inspired fashions by Azzedine Alaïa, 1992. (Roxanne

Lowit)
Karl Lagerfeld has made corsetry a centerpiece of his work for
Chanel. “You can’t wear these clothes without a corset,” declared
Lagerfeld. “They’re so tted that without a corset all the buttons
would pop o .”81 By 1994, the corset had reappeared both as
outerwear and as underwear. Even mainstream department stores
like Saks Fifth Avenue ran advertisements asserting that “the
corselette has emerged as the... ultimate accessory.”82

The Shoe, as seen in Skin Two. (Chris Bell)

 four
Shoes
According to an early version of the Cinderella story, the evil
stepsisters cut o their toes and heels to t into Cinderella’s glass
slippers, but were betrayed by a trail of blood. In William Klein’s
satiric lm Qui Etes-Vous, Polly Maggoo (1965), a professor explains
that the hidden meaning of the Cinderella story is “the value of tiny
feet and beautiful clothes.” He triumphantly concludes: “So there
you are: fetishism, mutilation, pain. Fashion in a nutshell.”
Although this is obviously an exaggeration, many people would
be inclined to agree, at least with respect to high heels. The artist
Camille Norment’s sculpture Glass Slipper is made of shards of
broken glass. Norment herself thought of the Cinderella story only
after she had completed the work; her initial idea was to create a
sculpture about clothing as bondage and about the vulnerability of
the body.
Yet high-heeled shoes also exert a powerful charm for many
people. “I’m a shoe fetishist,” one fashion journalist told me proudly
(meaning only that she liked shoes). There is a little bit of Imelda
Marcos in many women, and many men exhibit an almost Pavlovian
response to the sight of a woman in high heels. Are they all
fetishists? How does hard-core fetishism di er from the widespread
enthusiasm for “sexy” shoes and “playing footsie”? This chapter will
attempt to explain why the foot and shoe play such an important
role in the erotic imagination. Historically, the obvious comparison
is with bound feet.
 In the West, as in China, small feet have been popularly
associated with feminine beauty, while big feet and heavy boots are
equated with masculinity. High heels, in particular, have been
explicitly compared with bound feet.

Glass Slipper by Camille Norment. (Camille Norment)

The 3-Inch Golden Lotus
The practice of foot-binding in China bears many of the marks of a
cultural quasi-fetishism. Chinese erotic literature contains accounts
of men fondling, kissing, and licking bound feet. The 3-inch “golden
lotus” foot was celebrated as the erotic ideal: “Look at them in the
palms of your hands,” wrote one Sung poet, “so wondrously small
that they defy description.” A woman’s tottering steps were also
considered sexually attractive, and foot-binding was thought to
tighten the muscles of the vagina. The eighteenth-century Jesuit
Father Ripa wrote of the Chinese: “Their taste is perverted to such
an extraordinary degree that I knew a physician who lived with a
woman with whom he had no other intercourse but that of viewing
and fondling her feet.”1
If Father Ripa’s acquaintance really had no other sexual
intercourse than fondling his mistress’s feet, he would have been
regarded as distinctly peculiar by his Chinese contemporaries, who
placed a heavy emphasis on procreation as well as on the supposed
longevity-enhancing e ects of frequent and prolonged sexual
intercourse. Nevertheless, the story is at least super cially similar to
modern Western accounts of foot and shoe fetishism.
A recent report on contemporary sexual behavior, for example,
included the story of a woman who unknowingly married a foot and
shoe fetishist. To her horror, he spent their wedding night clipping
her toenails and kissing and licking her feet:
I blurted out, “Make love to me, I want you!” He replied, “I
am making love to you” and he ejaculated … What made
me totally freak out was what he tried to do with my toes.
You know the way guys hold a billiard cue between their
ngers? Well, Mr. Foot started putting his penis between my
toes and moving it back and forth, and got all worked up
...it was too weird.2
Whenever she tried to initiate genital intercourse, he became
impotent.
Foot-binding has usually been interpreted as a gruesome form of
female oppression and/or as a “kinky” type of sex. Yet scholars are
revising the traditional picture of foot-binding, which has come
down to us primarily through Western missionary accounts and
erotic literature—both sources with built-in biases. As Dorothy Ko
points out, “Foot binding is not one monolithic, unchanging
experience that all unfortunate women in each succeeding dynasty
went through, but is rather an amorphous practice that meant
di erent things to di erent people.... It is, in other words, a situated
practice.”3
While a full account of foot-binding is beyond the scope of this
chapter, the phenomenon can be understood only by placing it back
within its historical context and recognizing its multiple and shifting
meanings. Foot-binding apparently arose at the Chinese imperial
court during the tenth century, when it was associated with dancers.
Initially, it seems to have involved little more than the wearing of
tight socks, perhaps not unlike the toe shoes worn by ballet dancers.
In the Sung Dynasty, the custom spread throughout the upper
classes as a mark of status, becoming, at least in some cases, much
more physically deforming. By the fourteenth century, foot-binding
had penetrated even the peasant population. It did not disappear
until the early twentieth century.
 Chinese shoe for a bound foot.
Foot-binding was a painful and debilitating procedure that
severely limited a woman’s physical mobility. The four little toes
were pressed down under the ball of the foot, leaving only the big
toe to protrude. The forefoot and heel were pushed together,
moving the big toe down and the heel bone forward. Bones were
broken, and the arch formed a high curve, creating a deep cleft in
the sole of the foot. In silhouette, it gave the e ect of a high-heeled
shoe.
The sexual symbolism of this seems obvious, and, indeed, erotic
literature indicates that the toe was used in sex play as a phallic
substitute, while the cleft was utilized as a pseudo-vagina. The man
would put the entire foot into his mouth, and the woman would
stimulate the man by touching his penis with her feet. The shoe was
also the focus of erotic attention. Made of brightly colored and
embroidered silk, and often perfumed, the shoe concealed the foot
and ankle and was incorporated into various rituals, such as
drinking games.
Until recently, it was believed that only the very poorest Chinese
women (and members of other ethnic groups, like the Manchus)
escaped being mutilated. Yet it now seems that “although some girls
had their feet bound in the extreme and painful golden-lotus style,
others had theirs bound in less painful styles that ‘merely’ kept the
toes compressed or limited the growth of the foot but did not break
any bones.”4 The 3-inch bound foot may have been almost as rare as
the 16-inch waist.
A few Chinese males also apparently bound their feet. “Most
were the ‘adopted’ boys of adult homosexuals,” writes William Rossi
in his popular compendium, The Sex Life of the Foot and Shoe.
Lumping together several categories that may not accurately
describe the historical reality, he adds: “Chinese homosexuals,
transvestites, and professional female interpreters, while not
actually having bound feet, delighted in simulating the lotus foot by
tightly strapping their feet and squeezing them into small, lotuslike
shoes and imitating the sensuous willow walk.”5
Foot-binding seems to have been closely associated with Neo-
Confucianism and the social subordination of women. It was a way
of enforcing a woman’s chastity, a mark of conspicuous leisure, and
a sign of Chinese cultural identity. Missionary e orts played a part
in the demise of foot-binding, but the meaning of the practice also
changed within Chinese society. Whereas in the Sung Dynasty, foot-
binding was valorized as a way of emphasizing the virility and
civility of Chinese men, by the twentieth century many Chinese men
had reinterpreted foot-binding as a “backward” practice that
hindered national e orts to resist Western imperialism. Some, like
the novelist Li Ruzhun, also attacked foot-binding on the grounds
that it oppressed women. His novel Flowers in the Mirror included a
sequence about a country where women ruled and men had their
feet bound. Organizations like the Natural Foot Society had to
struggle to change the idea that unbound female feet were “big” and
ugly. There is some evidence that the introduction of Western high-
heeled shoes, which give the visual illusion of smaller feet and
produce a swaying walk, may have eased the erotic passage away
from the bound-foot ideal.
Should foot-binding be considered “fetishistic”? Freud thought
that it was, and it may well be that castration anxiety was in China
partially assuaged by the culturally normative practice of foot-
binding. But the meaning of any given practice is contextually
determined, and not all Chinese men were equally enthusiastic
about foot-binding. The Chinese novelist Feng Jicai recently wrote a
novel, The Three-Inch Golden Lotus, based on his extensive
knowledge of historical foot-binding, which describes a woman who
marries into a family where the men exhibit an obsession with
bound feet that greatly exceeded the norm within their own culture.
 English caricature comparing Chinese and French shoes.
Foot-binding certainly intrigues modern Western fetishists. In the
1970s, there was a foot-fetishist organization called The Lotus Club,
in honor of the legendary 3-inch lotus foot. And today articles
describe how to “bind” someone’s feet. But this says more about
modern fetishists than it does about the historical practice that they
idealize. Many contemporary fetishists like to associate their
individual psychosexual enthusiasms with traditional practices in
other cultures, yet there seem to be signi cant di erences between
modern fetishism and its antecedents. Nevertheless, Chinese foot-
binding may usefully be compared with the development of shoe
eroticism elsewhere in the world, for although there are important
distinctions, there are also striking similarities.
An Exaggerated Eroticism
The popular perception of the nineteenth century focuses on the
idea of sexual repression, and it is widely assumed that Victorian
sexual “prudery” spawned myriad hypocritical perversions. “The
campaign to conceal the leg was so e ective that by mid-century
men were easily aroused by a glimpse of a woman’s ankle,” wrote
historian Stephen Kern in Anatomy and Destiny. “The high incidence
at this time of fetishes involving shoes and stockings further testi es
to the exaggerated eroticism generated by hiding the lower half of
the female body.”6
Philippe Perrot, author of Fashioning the Bourgeoisie, also argues
that “in the nineteenth century, female bosoms and behinds were
emphasized, but legs were completely hidden, distilling into the lacy
foam of underwear an erotic capital, the returns on which could be
gauged by the cult of the calf and by the arousal caused by the
glimpse of an ankle.”7 Historical analyses of nineteenth-century
fashion often employ an economic trope, and it is suggested that
capitalism exploits the obsession with bodies in order to market new
commodities.
It is a crude and misleading stereotype to suggest that the long
skirts of the Victorians “caused” widespread foot and shoe fetishism.
Women’s skirts, after all, had been long for centuries—in the
“permissive” Paris of the eighteenth century as well as in allegedly
“prudish” Victorian London. Legs were certainly regarded as being
sexually attractive. In The Fleshly School of Poetry, Robert Buchanan
argued that “sensualism” was spreading dangerously through
society:
It has penetrated into the very sweetshops; and there... may
be seen this year models of the female Leg, the whole
de nite and elegant article as far as the thigh, with a fringe
of paper cut in imitation of the female drawers and
 embroidered in the female fashion!... The Leg, as a disease...
becomes a spectre, a portent, a mania... everywhere—the
Can-Can, in shop-windows.8
Kern suggests that this is evidence of sexual repression, but it might
more logically be interpreted as evidence of growing sexual display
or, perhaps, the spreading commercialization of sexuality. There is,
moreover, no reason to think that foot and shoe fetishism was more
common in the nineteenth century than it is today. Shoe fetishism
seems to have emerged, however, in the eighteenth century.
The French writer Restif de La Bretonne (1734-1806) was much
closer to what we might consider a “true” (Level 3 or 4) fetishist. In
his novel Le Pied de Fan-chette, Restif described how the narrator
stole the rose-colored slippers of his employer’s wife, which were so
appealing with their little pink tongues and green heels: “My lips
pressed one of the jewels, while the other, deceiving the sacred end
of nature, from excess of exultation replaced the object of sex.” In
other words, after kissing one “jewel,” he ejaculated into the other.
According to a recent study, “[Restif’s] daily diaries reveal even
more clearly than his stories that he was a shoe voyeur, a shoe
stealer, and a shoe collector.”9 He particularly liked high heels.
 Stocking advertisment, ca. 1900.
The Cult of the High Heel
In a recent article entitled “Hell on Heels,” Ann Magnuson described
both “the agony and the ecstasy” of high-heeled shoes, and
concluded that “what makes us di erent from the poor Chinese girls
who were robbed of their mobility is that when we’ve had enough,
we can walk away.”10 The height of shoes, like their size, has erotic
connotations. The most striking shoe of the Renaissance was the
Venetian chopine, an enormously high platform shoe that was
associated particularly with courtesans. Platform shoes (for men and
women) have existed in many cultures, where their signi cance is
by no means limited to eroticism. By increasing the apparent stature
of the wearer, they can signify high status. When not too high,
platform shoes, like the Japanese geta, can even serve functional
purposes, such as raising the wearer out of a muddy street.
There is no question, however, that very high shoes inhibit the
wearer’s movements, a form of “bondage” that some people nd
erotic.11 Sometimes even the appearance of restriction is perceived
as erotic. In 1992, the House of Chanel sold cork-soled platform
sandals with ankle straps, inspiring an article in the New York Times
in which fashion historian Anne Hollander asked what was so “sexy,
perverse, and delicious” about this look. Musing about “untold
erotic practices,” she suggested that an elegant ankle harness
presents the foot “as a beautiful slave.”12
In the seventeenth century, European shoemakers modi ed
platforms to create the high-heeled shoe. In the beginning, high
heels were worn by both men and women. As men’s fashions
became more subdued, however, high-heeled shoes became
associated with women. The erotic appeal of high heels cannot,
therefore, be separated from their association with “femininity.” It is
important to stress, however, that women’s fashion does not always
emphasize the high heel.13 Shoe fetishists, however, usually do.
The Englishwoman’s Domestic Magazine o ered many testimonials
to the high-heeled shoe, including several that explicitly compared
the style with foot binding. “One can understand about the torture
endured by the Chinese ladies... [but] no one will, I think, deny the
piquant and graceful e ect of the High-heeled Shoe.”14 A small,
“neat” foot in a “delicate” shoe, giving a “graceful” walk were
among the clearest enthusiasms of many EDM correspondents.15
They anathemized the “large, clumsy, heavy” heels of men’s shoes,
preferring narrow heels “as high as possible,” which gave “a high
instep” and “an arched waist.”16One correspondent insisted that he
had “seen fair Parisiennes walk with ease on heels quite three inches
high.”17 Notice how the numerology of foot size seems to have been
transposed to the size of the heel.

Venetian courtesan in chopines (platform shoes) and underpants, ca.

1600. (From Le Corset)
“High heels having succeeded the corset question in the ladies’
‘Conversazione,’ will you allow me to express my opinion upon this
latter as upon the former subject?” wrote WALTER. (YOU remember
Walter, who described tight-lacing at a boys’ boarding school in
Austria.) He liked the “graceful mode of walking” induced by high
heels, especially the way they caused a lady to “point her foot.”
Indeed, he himself had “adopted ladies’ boots... [and] gradually
increased the height of the heels [to 3 inches].”18
Long before fashion emphasized high heels, fetishists did, and
they have consistently advocated heels signi cantly higher than the
fashionable norm. According to shoe historian Mary Trasko,
fetishists have always emphasized “the extreme and ignored fashion
trends.”19
“The love of high heels is one of our ‘kinks,’ and I think a very
harmless one at that,” wrote a correspondent to London Life in
1933.20 Within the fetishist subculture, high heels were second only
to corsets in popularity. Indeed, high heels, tight corsets, and cross-
dressing formed a common combination, HAPPY HEELS, for example,
claimed to have pursuaded her husband to wear high heels and
corsets while at home.21 Mr. X said that he wore 8-inch heels and a
19-inch corset.22 SUBMISSIVE WIFE endured tight corsets and stilt-like
heels to please her husband, SIX-INCH HEELS also “Dress[ed] to Please
Hubby,” but she also claimed to please herself “even more.” “I
cannot see myself submitting unless I enjoyed it.”23
Heels are getting higher as skirts get shorter, claimed one
correspondent to Photo Bits in 1910.24 But the real picture was not
that simple. Some of the fetishist literature on high heels was
obviously fantastic. In 1910, Photo Bits published the serial story
“Peggy Paget’s Patent Paralyzing Pedal Props,” fetish shoes with 18-
inch heels and a “stilt” or “prop” under the sole in front.
 Fetish shoe with a heel of almost 8 inches, Austria, ca. 1900. (Musée
International de la Chaussure de Romans, France)
Oh, the tap of those “props” and “heels” on the hard oor!
Oh, the ecstasy—the indescribable ecstasy that throbbed my
every vein as I walked! Oh, the delight—the unutterable
delight—that consumed me as the mirrors around the walls
re ected my regal height and the erect pride with which I
“‘dotted!”25
A person wearing such shoes was not necessarily supposed to be
able to walk, however. Standing on point (not unlike a ballet
dancer), with arches radically curved, the wearer could barely
hobble. A fetish boot from turn-of-the-century Vienna has an
impossibly high heel, which was designed to be inserted (like a
dildo) into the fetishist’s anus. Fetishistic pornography often
describes how the male is scratched, stabbed, and penetrated by the
woman’s high heels.
The Shoe as Weapon—and as Wound
“The high heeled shoe... has become an object of devotion that
borders on passionate worship,” declared High Heels in 1962. Clad in
a high-heeled shoe, “the foot becomes a mysterious weapon which
threatens the passive male; and he glories in being so conquered.”
The high-heeled shoe is a “symbol of love”—and also “a symbol of
aggression.” “It signi es power. It indicates domination.”26
Primitive gender stereotypes are typical of fetishist fantasies:
“Nature had decreed that the male is aggressive while the female
remains passive. But this situation has been reversed in the past few
decades.”27 Although couched in terms of “female equalization,” the
image of the dominant female probably has more to do with the
psychic reality of male-female relations within the fetishist’s natal
family. “The whole idea of a female’s wearing high heels is to
emphasize her naturally dominant and aggressive personality,”
wrote one correspondent.28 “I consider men are real slaves,” HIGH-
HEELED de antly told London Life, adding, “A man should be allowed
to choose which kind of shoes he likes.”29
“The bare foot... holds no secrets!” But once covered, it becomes
“mysterious” and “forbidding”—and therefore fascinating. The
leather “is like rm, hard skin!”30 The man who worships high heels
“is actually humbling himself before the superior sex.” He regards
woman with such “awe and reverence” that she seems
“untouchable” and he feels grateful to kiss her shoes, nding this a
satisfying “form of humiliation.”31
There is also the giantess or crush fantasy, which envisions
women as huge giantesses crushing tiny, insigni cant men
underfoot. Leg Show includes a number of photographs and
drawings of powerful female feet, some naked, others in heels,
crushing and squishing everything from bananas to snails and bugs.
(Videos are also advertised, which include “wet, slurpy sound
e ects.”) One particularly striking series of photographs shows a
woman’s foot in a black high-heeled shoe being besieged and
attacked by dozens of tiny plastic soldiers.32
Richard von Kra t-Ebing believed that “the majority—and
perhaps all” shoe fetishists were masochists. Mr. X, for example,
wanted to “lie at a lady’s feet and smell and lick her shoes.”33
Havelock Ellis presented the case of a man whose erotic life focused
on women’s legs and feet, “exquisitely clothed,” and on being
“trampled on with utmost severity.” C. P. wrote:
The skirts should be raised su ciently to a ord me the
pleasure of seeing her feet and a liberal amount of ankle,
but in no case above the knee, or the e ect is greatly
reduced....
The treading should be in icted... all over the chest,
abdomen and groin, and lastly on the penis, which is, of
course... in a violent state of erection.... I also enjoy being
nearly strangled by a woman’s foot.34
The strangling fantasy that C. P. enjoyed when the foot pressed on
his throat suggests some signi cant connotations. Certainly, the
pressure on the penis recalls the pressure of the corset, the
constriction of a tight glove, and so on. C. P. even derived “a strong
erection” from seeing grass “rise again” after a woman’s “foot has
pressed it.”35 He did not like boots, however, and had “an
unconquerable aversion to red in slippers or stockings; it will even
cause impotence.”36Attracted by the shoe as weapon, he was
repelled when it symbolized the wound.
Some shoe fetishists, however, are fascinated by physical
mutilation. A man from Oregon wrote to the Biz-zarre Club about
his interest in “extreme” and “unusual” shoes: “I am a student of
shoe design specializing in orthopedic styles for the lame or
deformed.”37 London Life published a number of letters about the
“monopede kink.”38 The photographer Helmut Newton appeared to
be evoking this type of fetishism when he shot Jenny Capitan
dressed as a “cripple” in a full-leg cast and neck brace, posed in
front of an unmade bed in the Pension Dorian, Berlin.39
“Panty Raid,” an example of transvestite pornography, includes a
number of fantasies about fetish shoes. When the dominant female
“stamped her dainty but powerfully shod foot, tiny sparks escaped
from the stiletto seven-inch heel!” Each shoe also had “an open-toe
through which peeped a gleaming red nail.” (Illustrations in shoe-
fetish magazines often show the female toenails as cruel red talons
or claws.) The captive male in the story was dressed as a woman as
punishment: “Bruce nearly gagged when both of his feet were
punished as they were inserted into the high arched instep of these
white patent leather shoes.” The most striking aspect of the shoes
was their blatant castration imagery: “The vamp was decorated with
an unusual design: a miniature guillotine, glimmering in a
rhinestone setting.”40

“Far-Out Fashion” (Fron Bizarre Shoes and Boots, 1984;

Centurian/Spartacus)
Booted Master
There are no rhinestones and stiletto heels in pornographic novels
like Boot Licker, Boot-Licking Slave, and Booted Master, but the titles
give a sense of this genre, in which boots symbolize a big penis.
Boots with heavy soles and heels that smell of sweat and leather are
ultra-masculine: “The black leather engineer boot is the boot for
men who know that you are what you wear on your feet.” A boy
must learn to be “worthy of the boots of a man.”41
In Booted Master, the tough biker Nino mocks Brian’s e eminate
shoes: “Sneakers!... You little pussy!... And I suppose you got a pair
of red satin panties on under your jeans, too?” Motorcycle clubs,
Nino says, have “a dress code just like the dress code which
demands a jacket and tie for a man at a ne restaurant, or a certain
style to get into Studio 54.” He ties Brian up, with a sneaker tied
around his genitals, “to teach you about boots.” This segues into a
scene of licking boots: “They’ll be like mirrors... you’ll be able to
look down and see your peter in ‘em.” The taste is of “dirt, leather,
cum, shit, and piss.”42
“Let me feel your boots around me,” a man says. But Brian
insists that men who have sex with other men are not “queer or
gay.... They just did it with guys... for fun.” Wearing boots is a
masculine privilege, for studs only. “You didn’t think you could ll
my boots did ya, punk?” mocks Nino. Then he is supplanted by a
man in cowboy boots of “polished leather with ingrained designs...
tall heels and pointed toes.” The man also wears “a pair of cowboy
chaps still smelling of bull semen and an opened shirt, exposing a
muscled chest.” Boots can taste like velvet.43 Slaves lick their
masters’ heavy black leather boots “like a baby licks a paci er.”44
Boots have also been associated with lesbians. In contemporary
Brazil, the word for a dyke is sapatao, which literally means “big
shoes.” One Brazilian man explained: “The shoe has the connotation
of the foot, that the man who has a large foot, he... has a big
prick.... It’s a popular proverb.” But “of all the terms for the dyke,
‘army boot’ [coturno] is the strongest,” added another man, because
“it’s the symbol of machismo.” A soldier puts on “boots that come
up to here, a thing to step in the mud with, to go to battle.... So it’s
very much a man’s thing! Understand? So, the army boot is a shoe
that stands up to everything and is strong.” Conversely, the
Brazilian slang term for a “femme” lesbian is sapatilha (slipper),
“because sapatilha is the shoe that ballerinas use.”45

Drawing by Tom of Finland, 1978. (Image used by written permission

of the Tom of Finland Foundation, P.O. Box 26658, Los Angels,
 Calif. 90026)
Boots have been strongly correlated with both masculinity and
powerful phallic femininity for more than a century, A SUSCEPTIBLE
BACHELOR wrote to EDM that boots, “as emblematic of strength and
resistence,” were “decidedly masculine.” He preferred “delicate
curving sandals,” although whether for himself or his lady friends is
unclear.46 NIMROD associated booted women with Amazons: “Ladies’
riding-boots should be Wellingtons or Napoleons,” worn with
chamois trousers. Spurs (another enthusiasm for many EDM
correspondents) should, he argued, be clearly visible.47 A twentieth-
century transvestite reported that he liked the look of women’s
boots “because it hides ankles (bony and therefore not feminine
enough) and emphasizes calves ( esh).”48
A rare case of female fetishism involved a general’s daughter
attracted by “the shiny riding boots of her father.” She chose to
marry an ugly old man “just because he wore very high riding
boots.” “A man clad in boots and sitting atop a horse is the only
man,” she asserted. Conversely, a man in low civilian shoes was “no
man at all in her eyes.” She was violently repelled by a man’s naked
foot, especially the big toe. “She herself preferred to wear high
shoes because of the virile and erect appearance it gave her and also
because of the pleasant sensation of being tightly laced in”49
Shoes and Sex
“Many close-ups of pretty feet slipping into, in... and out of sexy
spike heels,” promises an advertisement for fetish videos.50 The shoe
can function as a symbolic substitute for the penis, and also for the
vagina into which the phallic foot is inserted. Freud thought that the
shoe was frequently fetishized because it was the last (acceptable)
thing the boy saw when he looked up his mother’s skirt before his
eyes met the horrifying female genitals.
But in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, The Denial of Death,
Ernest Becker argues that “the foot is its own horror; what is more,
it is accompanied by its own striking and transcending denial and
contrast—the shoe.” Other body parts also have their corresponding
fetish objects: The genitals are veiled by lingerie, the eshy torso
and breasts are armoured in corsets, but the foot-and-shoe form a
particularly striking unit. Whereas the foot is a low and dirty
“testimonial to our degraded animality,” the shoe—made of soft and
shiny polished leather with an elegantly curved arch and pointed
toe, lifted above the ground on a hard spiked heel—“is the closest
thing to the body and yet it is not the body.”51
In support of his theory, Becker quotes from a case history in
Medard Boss’s The Meaning and Content of Sexual Perversions. It
describes a man who believed that “sexual intercourse is a great
disgrace for humans.”52 Boss’s patient was also repelled by naked
feet. He was very much attracted to clothing fetishes, however,
particularly ladies’ shoes and boots:
Whenever he saw or touched [ladies’ boots and shoes] “the
world changed miraculously,” he said. What had just
appeared as “grey and senseless within the dreary, lonely
and unsuccessful everyday, then suddenly drifts away from
me, and light and glamour radiate from the leather to me.”
 These leather objects seemed to have “a strange halo”
shedding its light upon all other things. “It is ridiculous, but
it feels like being a fairy prince. An incredible power, Mana,
emanates from these gloves, furs and boots, and completely
enchants me.”... Naked women or a woman’s hand without a
glove or especially a woman’s foot without a shoe... seemed
to be like lifeless pieces of meat in a butcher shop. In fact, a
woman’s naked foot was really repulsive to him.... However,
when the woman wore [the fetish] she... grew above the
“pettiness and vicious concreteness of the common female”
with her “abhorrent genitals” and she was raised into... “the
sphere where superhuman and subhuman blend into
universal godliness.”53
There is much to be said for Becker’s theory, and yet it
overemphasizes the di erences between the foot and shoe.
Many fetishists are attracted to both the body part and its
covering. Some work to glamorize the foot with pedicures, creams,
and nail polish; others are attracted particularly to “red, swollen,
dirty, sweaty” feet.54 Some fetishists claim to “worship” feet and
shoes; others seem to want to punish the feet by forcing them into
shoes that are “beautiful,” but also painful or crippling. One man
who liked to “direct the stream of semen... into the opening of the
shoe” (a man’s patent leather shoe) was severely depressed when he
noticed “a slight crack in one of the shoes.” It was “as if I had seen
the rst wrinkle in the face of a beloved woman.”55
 Repulsion and attraction alternate. “I even get turned on by the
sight of my own feet,” declared one man, communicating via
Internet.56 By contrast, a recent biography of the novelist F. Scott
Fitzgerald reveals that “the sight of his own feet lled him with
embarrassment and horror,” and he tried never to let other people
see his naked feet. Yet Fitzgerald was sexually excited by women’s
feet. In a scene from This Side of Paradise, he uses the image of a
man’s ugly feet to symbolize evil and sexual immorality: “The feet
were all wrong.... It was like weakness in a good woman, or blood
on satin.” His biographer argues that Fitzgerald’s phobia about feet,
“which stick out sti y and were strongly associated with sex,” was
related to his belief that his penis was inadequate.57
Fetishism, Becker argues, “represents the anxiety of the sexual
act,” and the fetish itself functions as a “magical charm” that
transforms the terrifying reality of “species meat” into something
“transcendant.”58 The intense repulsion experienced by fetishists is
extreme, like the overidealization of the cultural fabrications that
fascinate them. Yet who would doubt that physical sexuality seems
at least a little threatening to almost everyone? Performance anxiety
is a male fear, and this may be one reason why fetishism is almost
always a male perversion. If a woman is afraid of sex, she may
become “frigid,” but she can pretend to have an orgasm (if that is
regarded as desirable). A man’s failure is harder to conceal. So he
“hypnotizes himself with the fetish and creates his own aura of
fascination that completely transforms the threatening reality.” The
fetish is “a magic charm.”59
 “In many cases one nds that perverse activity is more freely
exercised when certain aesthetic conditions are ful lled,” observed
one psychoanalyst many years ago. Just as a man with whipping
fantasies insisted on a whip that was exactly the right size, shape,
and color, so did shoe and underwear fetishists insist that their
objects had to “conform to certain rigid aesthetic laws of pattern,
color, line and so on.” He added:
The rigidity of such standards is reminiscent of the severe
canons upheld by some critics or exponents of the ne arts.
Indeed, if one did not know what was the actual subject
matter... it would be very di cult for the hearer to
distinguish certain diagnostic discussions of the conditions
for perverse sexual grati cation from an aesthetic discussion
of “good” and “bad” art.60
Some psychiatrists suggest that there may, in fact, be a relationship
between “creativity and perversion.” They argue that “perverts” are
especially drawn to art and beauty, and their compulsion to idealize
is related to their need to disguise anality. Thus, the fetish object is
often both smelly and shiny.61
Already by the nineteenth century, shiny black leather was
especially prized. Kra t-Ebing’s Psychopathia Sexualis (1886)
includes several case histories of shoe fetishism. Neglected and
maligned as inaccurate and anecdotal, these little stories cry out to
be analyzed as narrative texts.
Case 113. Shoe-fetishism. Mr. von P., of an old and
honourable family, Pole, aged thirty-two, consulted me in
 1890, on account of “unnaturalness” of his vita sexualis.... At
the age of seventeen he had been seduced by a French
governess, but coitus was not permitted; so that intense
mutual sexual excitement (mutual masturbation) was all
that was possible. In this situation his attention was
attracted by her very elegant boots.... Her shoes became a
fetish for the unfortunate boy.... He had the governess touch
his penis with her shoes, and thus ejaculation with great
lustful feeling was immediately induced.62
The explanation of the etiology of fetishism given here is extremely
problematic. Many men’s rst sexual encounters involve mutual
masturbation while clothed, but they do not usually become shoe
fetishists.
“In the company of the opposite sex the only thing that
interested him was the shoe, and that only when it was elegant...
with heels, and of a brilliant black.” These are precisely the
characteristics overwhelmingly preferred by shoe fetishists today.
When Mr. von P. saw women on the street wearing such shoes, “he
was so intensely excited that he had to masturbate.... Shoes
displayed in shops, and, of late, even advertisements of shoes,
su ced to excite him intensely.” He was advised to marry, but
the wedding night was terrible; he felt like a criminal, and
did not approach his wife. The next day he saw a
prostitute.... Then he bought a pair of elegant ladies’ boots
and hid them in bed, and, by touching them, while in
marital embrace, he was able to perform his marital duty...
 [but] he had to force himself to coitus; and after a few
weeks this arti ce failed.
He felt guilty toward his wife, “who was sensual, and much excited
by their previous intercourse.” But even had he been willing to
“disclose his secret” (which he was not), and if his wife “were to do
everything for him, it would not help him; for the familiar perfume
of the demi-monde was also necessary.”63
This scenario resembles certain twentieth-century accounts 64—
although the modern fetishist-husband often tries to get his wife to
go along with his sexual obsessions. The literature on prostitution
indicates, however, that the shoe fetishist is still a recognized type.
Foot and shoe fetishism is widely believed to be the commonest
type of fetishism existing today.65 As one publisher put it, “When we
started our magazine on sex fetishes, we expected to cover the
whole range. But our mail and other feedback quickly told us that
the foot and shoe fetishes outnumbered any other fetish group by at
least three to one.”66 Pornographic titles include Foot Worship, Foot
Torture, High-Heeled & Dominant, High-Heeled Sluts, Spikes
Domination, Spurs, Stiletto, Super Spikes, and Unisex Shoes & Boots.
Foot Torture is about a female jogger who is taken to a man’s
apartment and made to remove her clothing down to her
underpants and sweat socks. “After smelling her socks he licks her
bare feet, ties them up and places them over a Hibatchi! Then he
tickles them and....” This scenario would seem to have only a
limited appeal, and, indeed, a major survey of pornographic
publications revealed that less than 1 percent were devoted to
shoes, boots, and feet.67 But Marilyn Monroe was not referring to 1
percent of the population when she (supposedly) said, “I don’t know
who invented the high heel. But all women owe him a lot.”
Foot Worship
Dian Hanson, the editor of Leg Show (one of the best contemporary
fetish magazines), warned her readers that there was a “gulf of
misunderstanding” between men and women: “Since normal male
sexuality intimidates women, imagine what fetishes do to them.”
When she asked a number of women “if they knew some men were
turned on by seeing their feet in sandals, the most common reaction
was disbelief. Followed by fear. Some women said the information
made them want to stop wearing sandals, made them afraid to wear
sandals.” She wanted to reassure women that only “the unbalanced
few” needed to be feared; in most cases involving fetishism, the
women “had all the power.”68
When I have lectured on shoes, some women in the audience
have also become agitated, asking, “What kind of shoes can I wear
that won’t attract fetishists?” But almost every kind of shoe seems to
have its enthusiasts, including ripped old sneakers. Nevertheless,
certain styles evoke most interest.
For many years, high boots have been “the trademark of
prostitutes specializing in sadomasochism.”69 By 1994, Ann
Magnuson could joke with the readers of a fashion magazine that
designers like Marc Jacobs had “crossed Emma Peel with Betty Page
to come up with... boots that would look smashing with a rubber
mac and a horsewhip.” Patent leather boots with spike heels were
“for the domi-natrix in everyone.” Wearing these heels, she
reported, “I felt a surge of power, knowing that I could lay waste
any man I chose to destroy.” She fantasized: “Down on the oor,
you worm! I said now, you worthless CEO!”70
In recent years, fashion has frequently emphasized what one
fetish magazine called “cruel shoes.”71 As a writer for Bizarre put it,
“Check out some of these latest fashions and tell us that women
aren’t getting into that dominant feeling.”72One professional
dominatrix explained that, like her transvestite clients, she had to
learn how to walk in 5-inch heels, but she preferred them for her
work: “It pushes up your ass. Also you can use your high heel as a
torture item.” Heels also make a woman taller, “which is an
advantage over men.”73
Since exposure implies accessibility, “naked” shoes are also
regarded as sexy. Slingbacks are popularly known as “fuck me
shoes” because they present a naked rear view of the foot.
Frederick’s of Hollywood named one shoe “Open ‘n Inviting.” “Open
to Suggestion” is a “provocative open-toed pump” that is “sensually
punched for a really nude look.”
According to image consultants, open-toed shoes “encourage
men to think of women as a sexual partner rather than as a potential
chairman of the board,” reported the Wall Street Journal.74 An extra
one-sixteenth of an inch reveals the crack between the toes, which
apparently can remind men of other kinds of cleavage or, perhaps,
other “slits” in the female body. Or as Ann Magnuson reported, “The
shoe lewdly exposed my toe cleavage in a display vaguely
reminiscent of some meat by-product at my local butcher shop.”75
The foot is perceived as a surrogate body, whose di erent parts
can be exposed. Glamorous evening pumps have “a low-cut throat
line,” reported Frederick’s. A “vampish fantasy” highlights a split
vamp, open toe and ankle strap. The great shoemaker Salvatore
Ferragamo once designed a satin shoe with the vamp “cut away to
show the instep in precisely the same fashion as Dior’s neckline.” He
also designed a shoe with a clear “crystal” oval inserted into the
sole. When the wearer held her foot at a certain angle, other people
could see the bottom of her foot.76
Exotic is another key term in the Frederick’s of Hollywood
vocabulary: “EXOTIC leopard print on SENSUOUS Fur.” It may implicitly
evoke “exotic” sex practices: “A HIGH-STEPPING sandal in EXOTIC leather
in alligator print PROVOKES his desires.” A snakeskin sandal is “SSS-
insational” (note the accent on sin).Bondage is also erotic: “A sexy
ankle strap twists seductively around your shapely leg.” One sandal
has a “captivating ‘cage’ back,” while another features a “sexy chain
strap.” Certain materials catch the eye: “Patent leather SHINES
seductively day or night.”77
The popularity of certain fetish objects is not random. There are
cultural and historical reasons why certain clothing items are often
chosen as fetishes. High heels are strongly associated in our culture
with a certain kind of sexually sophisticated woman, which is why
they are favored by prostitutes and cross-dressers. By contrast, low
heels have come to imply the absence of female sexual allure.
According to the magazine High Heels, “Flat is... a dirty word! And
you’ll nd nothing ‘ at’ in this issue of HIGH HEELS except the
tummies of the models—who wouldn’t be caught dead in ‘ ats,’ who
all have FULL bosoms, CURVY torsos, ROUND hips, LITHE legs, and... HIGH
HEELS!”78

Many characteristics commonly associated with feminine sexual

attractiveness are accentuated by high-heeled shoes, which a ect
the wearer’s gait and posture. By putting the lower part of the body
in a state of tension, the movement of the hips and buttocks is
emphasized and the back is arched, thrusting the bosom forward.
High heels also change the apparent contour of the legs, increasing
the curve of the calf and tilting the ankle and foot forward, thus
creating an alluringly long-legged look. Seen from a certain angle, a
high-heeled shoe also recalls the pubic triangle.
There are probably biological reasons why fetishes tend to have
a strong visual appeal. Shiny black leather shoes catch the eye, and
black stockings show up against white skin. There is considerable
evidence that the male pattern of sexual arousal is more visual than
that of the female. We now know that infants can perceive black on
white before color, and males may “imprint” early on contrasts that
graphically delimit parts of the body. Male arousal is also more
sharply de ned, perhaps because the penis gives an immediate
response.
 Fake-pony-skin shoes with spurs by Therry Mugler, 1991. (Roxanne
Lowit)
Many women also love shoes and avidly collect them. Yet this
female enthusiasm seldom parallels the speci cally erotic practices
of male shoe fetishists (such as licking shoes) or even the visceral
response of ordinary fetishizing men (women seldom have an
involuntary orgasm when they see a man in nice shoes). Nor do
women seem to have the fantasies associated with male shoe
fetishists (such as the giantess squishing little bugs). Nevertheless,
shoes certainly provide tactile stimuli for women. As Ann Magnuson
put it,
The bones in my ankles cracked... and my Achilles tendons
bent backward.... Hobbling down the avenue, I became
 acutely aware of... my body. My breasts jutted forward,
while my back was severely arched. My ass felt bigger than
a Buick, and my thighs, or rather my fanks, swung back and
forth like a couple of sides of beef.... Are these shoes
disempowering? Do they enslave us? Are we rendered
helpless by wearing them?
The answer is yes! Yes! Of course! What other point
would there be in wearing them?79
(The heels also made her feel “mythically omnipotent,” while the
di culties involved in wearing them decreased with practice.)
Whereas men seem to “imprint” early in their lives on certain
types of shoes (such as stiletto-heeled pumps), women apparently
respond more consciously to the cultural construction of shoes as
objects of desire. Their interest in particular types of shoes is often
related to the current fashion. Already in the 1960s, Yves Saint
Laurent showed thigh-high crocodile boots, and Mary Quant
designed corset-laced boots. In the 1970s, English and Italian
fashion shops like Biba and Fiorucci showed high platform shoes.
The 1980s saw both fantasy shoes, like Thea Calabria’s “Maid Shoe,”
and classic styles, like pink satin evening mules by Manolo Blahnik.
The 1990s witnessed the revival of all these period styles and
especially 1950s stilettos, the classic “bitchy” shoe. The spread of
“downtown” gay male style has also become increasingly
conspicuous at the highest levels of fashion: from Versace’s bondage
gladiator boots to Chanel’s triple-buckled leather combat boots,
which resemble the ones worn by motorcycle cops (except for the
entwined Cs stitched on the toes). Avant-garde designers like
Vivienne Westwood and Jean-Paul Gaultier have been notably
inspired by fetish gear. Westwood designed platform shoes so high
that model Naomi Campbell fell down during her show. Gaultier
mines all the kinks—from rubber boots to weird creations with
multiple spikes.
Fashion writer Holly Brubach once wrote an essay, “Shoe Crazy,”
asking why so many women loved shoes. Freudian theories may
“account for the thrill some men get out of the shoes women wear,”
she argued, but they fail to explain “the thrill -women get.” As she
put it, “No woman with a normal, healthy shoe drive would content
herself with a closetful of phallic symbols.”80 I agree.
The shoe combines masculine and feminine imagery on many
levels, from the stiletto heel penetrating the fetishist’s body to the
foot sliding into an open shoe. Pornography frequently labels the
woman in high heels as a slut, thus positioning her as an accessible
sexual object. (If she wears prostitute shoes, then she’s asking for it.)
Conversely, the discourse in women’s fashion magazines focuses on
the fantasy that men will worship at the feet of a beautiful woman.
Equally important is the role shoes play in the creation (and
violation) of gender stereotypes. “I adore girls in heels,” says fashion
photographer Mario Testino. “They can play and wear high heels,
and we can’t.” High heels are “the ultimate symbol of womanhood,”
declared journalist Frances Rogers Little. And Testino agreed, “It’s
the one thing that di erentiates men from women.”81
Underwear as fetish. (Copyright © Eric Kroll, 1994)
 ve
Underwear
In 1994, a Times Square establishment called the Lingerie Lounge
advertised a new twist on the strip show:
Keep A Breast of the Latest in Sexy Fashions. Bare Elegance.
Beautiful Girls Modeling Hot Sexy Lingerie. Peek in on Girls
Taking Their Clothes O and Trying on Sexy Lingerie in our
LINGERIE LOUNGE

Surround yourself with beautiful Fashion Models in various

stages of undress … Our girls are never really nude, they
always have their garter belts and stockings on!1
The women’s fashion magazine Mirabella then reprinted the Lingerie
Lounge yer on a page of fashion news that showed the latest
lingerie-inspired fashions.
This chapter will explore the erotic appeal of underwear, as both
fetish and fashion. After a brief section on underwear eroticism in
general, the chapter will be roughly divided into sections devoted to
di erent garments, such as underpants, stockings and garter belts,
slips, brassieres and girdles. The focus will be primarily on female
underwear, but men’s underwear will also be considered. The
distinction is not always clear, however, since one of the erotic
functions of underpants is to blur the visible distinctions between
men and women. We will also look at the phenomenon of
underwear-as-outerwear, which has become a major fashion trend
over the past decade. It may be signi cant in this respect that the
performers at the Lingerie Lounge are described as “Fashion
Models.”

Underwear as outerwear by Dolce and Gabbana. (Roxanne Lowit)

It Is the Veiled, Secret Part
This is not intended to be a history of underwear, but some
historical background is necessary to place the subject in context.
The development in early modern Europe of a specialized category
of underclothing was an important historical stage in the evolving
eroticism of dress. In place of the traditional paradigm of the naked
and the clothed, there was now an intermediate position, since a
person in underwear was simultaneously dressed and undressed.
The origin of underwear was practical, however, not erotic. “The
perceived need for underclothing as distinct from main garments
amongst the nobility... developed in the Middle Ages,” and was
motivated in large part by the desire to protect expensive outer
garments from the sweaty, dirty body underneath. Linen
undergarments also protected the body from being irritated by
abrasive wool clothes and provided an extra layer of warmth.2
Underwear began to become the focus of sexual and sartorial
interest by the eighteenth century, a process that accelerated in the
second half of the nineteenth century; the years between about 1890
and 1910 were “the great epoch of underwear.”3 Emile Zola
described the lingerie on display at a Paris department store that
looked “as if a group of pretty girls had undressed, piece by piece,
down to the satin nudity of their skin.”4 Another writer, Octave
Uzanne, compared a woman in lingerie to a ower, “whose
innumerable petals become more and more beautiful and delicate as
you reach the sweet depths of the innermost petals. She is like a rare
orchid, who surrenders the fragrance of her mysteries only in the
intimacies of love.”5
Month after month, the fashion press elaborated on the theme:
“Lingerie is an enthralling subject.” The English fashion writer Mrs.
Eric Pritchard even argued that “the Cidt of Chi on has this in
common with the Christian religion—it insists that the invisible is
more important than the visible.... Dainty undergarments... are not
necessarily a sign of depravity.” “The most virtuous among us are
now allowed to possess pretty undergarments without being looked
upon as suspicious characters,” wrote Pritchard, who even blamed
failed marriages on a wife’s unwillingness to wear seductive
lingerie. A woman might be “the most virtuous” of wives, but if she
were “without mystery and without coquetry,” she would be far
from attractive to her husband—who might well stray in search of
another “petticoat.”6
French writers were even more emphatic about the erotic appeal
of lingerie. According to the Comtesse de Tramar, the act of
undressing marked “the amorous stations of desire.” If the wife was
also to be her husband’s lover, she should recognize the “essential
importance” of erotic underwear: “It is the veiled, secret part, the
desired indiscretion conjured up; the man in love expects silky
thrills, caresses of satin, charming rustles, and is disappointed by an
unshapely mass of rigid lingerie.... It is a disaster!”7 In Tons les
secrets de la femme, the Baronne d’Orchamps agreed that “nothing
equals the voluptuous power of feminine underwear.” “At the
apparition of these veils... [an] ineluctible rapture... comes over the
masculine brain.” Their “vaporous ingenuity and involved style add
to the mysterious and tempting power of the desired treasures in
proportion that the woman feigns to protect and distance them.”8
The sexual power and charm of the naked body seemed to “rub
o ” on underwear, which then added an additional frisson of
excitement all its own. By artfully concealing the body, especially
the genitals, underwear heightens sexual curiosity, holding in
promise the thrill of exposure. Concealed from sight, like the body
that it touches, underwear also alludes to undress as a prelude to
sexual intimacy. But this is no more than the “normal” fetishizing
that seems characteristic of so much of the sexual imagination.

La Goulou in frilly wider-pants and petticoats, ca. 1895.

The correspondence in periodicals like Society was more overtly
fetishistic. SATIN WAIST declared that the compression of his red satin
corset was “more than compensated for by the delightful freedom of
the lower limbs, and the musical ‘swish’ of petticoats.”9 “Petticoats!
The word has ever a fascinating sound, has it not?... [I]t is an
essentially feminine garment,” wrote another enthusiast.10 “Every
man who is a man has a perfect passion for frills and ‘frilly’
things.”11The theft of petticoats is the theme of stories like “The
Strange History of a Lace Petticoat.”12 Meanwhile, the clinical
literature reports cases of petticoat fetishism, such as the German
peasant who masturbated with his mother’s or sister’s petticoats,
saying that “the petticoats were, for him, the same as a woman.” (At
the age of thirty, when he was arrested for the theft of petticoats, he
never had had intercourse with a woman.13)

Fashion from Gianni Versace’s “bondage” collection, 1992. (Roxanne

Lowit)
eather at the gay-pride parade. (Robert Fox/Impact Visuals)
Exotic bondage. (Centurian/Spartacus)
Corset by Christian Lacroix, 1994. (Roxanne Lowit)
 Madonna in a corset by Jean-Paul Gaultier. (Archive Photos)

Corset by Vivienne Westwood, 1987–1988. (Vivienne Westwood)

Corset by Karl Lagerfeld for Chanel, 1992. (Roxanne Lowit)
Photograph of Roy for Murray & Vern. (Copyright © Peter Ashworth,
1993)
Fetish boot with a heel of almost 11 inches. Vienna, ca. 1900.
(Photograph by Elizabeth Eylieu; Collection Guillen; Musée
International de la Chaussure de Romans, France)
Rubber dress and leather trenchcoat by Marc Jacobs, fall 1994. (M.
Chandoha Valentino)
Red motorcycle boots by Chanel, 1992. (Roxanne Lowit)
Girdle and shoes. A similar picture appeared in Leg Show. (Copyright
© Eric Kroll, 1994)

Dolce and Gabbana, 1991. (Roxanne Lowit)

Underwear from the Ghost collection, 1994. (M. Chandoha Valentino)
“Parity Raid. “(Division of Rare Book and Manuscript Collections,
Carl A. Kroch Library, Cornell University)
Fake-fur panties by Vivienne Westwood, 1994. (Roxanne Lowit)
“Fetish girl” in latex. (Copyright © Eric Kroll, 1994)
Second-skin fashion at Thierry Mugler, 1991. (Roxanne Lowit)
Satin, leather, and lace. Anna Sui, spring 1995. (Roxanne Lowit)
Rubber becomes fashionable. Marc Jacobs, fall 1994. (M. Chandoha
Valentino)
Rubber gear by Kim West. (Photograph by Kevin Davies)
 Corset and chaps by Thierry Mugler, 1992. (Roxanne Lowit)

Motorcycle bustier by Thierry Mugler, 1992. (Patrice Stable JFP)

“Naughty Nurse. ”(Aaron Cobbett)
Anna Sui, spring 1995. (M. Chandoha Valentino)
The construction of femininity. (Centurian/Spartacus)
High heels. (Archive Photos)
Fetish shoe from the 1930s. (Photograph by Elizabeth Eylieu;
Collection Hellstern; Musée International de la Chaussure de
Romans, France)
Black lace mask and gloves by Anna Sui, spring 1995. (Roxanne Lowit)
Dress with back lacing by Jean-Paul Gaultier, 1991. (Roxanne Lowit)
Corset by Thierry Mugler, 1992. (Roxanne Lowit)
Tattoos and body piercing at Jean-Paul Gaultier, 1994. (M. Chandoha
Valentino)
It would be a mistake to think that underwear fetishism was a
phenomenon only of the n de siecle. It is true that fashion changed
dramatically after about 1910, and the mystery of rustling petticoats
tended to give way to what were now lightheartedly referred to as
“undies.” But although the fashion for sartorial froufroutage was
replaced by a new emphasis on body exposure and “candid” sexual
display, the fetishizing of underwear continued to exist.
“Men like girls who like lingerie,” declared stripper Lily “Cat
Girl” Christine in a 1956 article provocatively entitled “My Under
Pretties.” It is not surprising that a stripper should extol the charms
of lingerie, since the striptease artfully expoits the tantalizing e ects
of strategic concealment. Yet there is a defensive undertone in her
insistence that “I don’t go for the [Marilyn] Monroe ‘no-underwear’
slogan.” Underwear had become “a controversial topic,” she
continued, because “a microscopic sized minority of girls have made
headlines about not wearing anything under their dresses. But they
do. They just think its more sexy and exciting to say they don’t.”14
Is it sexier with or without underwear? Opinions obviously
di er, but a sizable number of men apparently like to linger at the
stages prior to genital exposure and intercourse, and feel that a
woman who is partially clothed is more alluring than one who is
stark naked. Magnus Hirshfeld found that out of 1000 men, 350 said
that they were most attracted to the naked body, 400 voted for
partial nudity, and 250 preferred the fully dressed body.15
Prostitutes still emphasize the use of lingerie. One dominatrix told
the psychiatrist Robert Stoller that she wore three pairs of
underwear. Removing the opaque top layer excited the client, who
was then surprised and ba ed to nd that her genitals were still
concealed, which reinforced the woman’s position of “control.”16
Women sometimes allude to the tactile and psychological appeal
of underwear. As the Cat Girl put it, “I love lovely underthings and
feel exquisite undergarments make a woman feel all woman.”17 But
for men, there seems to be more of a leap from the sensual to the
sexually symbolic. As one cross-dresser put it, “ ne and silky
underwear” made him feel “like a brilliantly entertaining
prostitute.” And another said that “even the mere names of pieces of
clothing... had something magical.”18
From Pants to Panties
Venetian courtesans wore underpants during the Renaissance, but
the style was not widely adopted because of the historical
association in the West between pants and masculinity. Long
regarded as a “demi-masculine” article of dress, underpants were
worn rst by prostitutes, dancers, and little girls. Respectable
women only gradually adopted underpants over the course of the
nineteenth century for reasons of modesty, warmth, and “hygiene.”
As late as the 1870s, some French writers still argued that “le
pantalon ... is a man’s article of clothing” that elegant women should
abstain from wearing.19 When the issue of impropriety faded,
however, underpants quickly became fashionable and were
increasingly made in elegant materials, such as silk. “So light, so
brief, with cascades of Valenciennes lace and frills of ribbons, these
pantalons ... drive a lover crazy better than the immodest state of
nudity,” declared one French novelist in 1887.20 Although some
men complained that the opportunity to glimpse women’s genitals
had decreased as women adopted underpants, a new voyeurism
directed toward the underpants themselves was born. Much of the
appeal of high-kicking dances like the can can and the cahnt derived
from the exhibition of the dancers’ frilly underpants and petticoats.
As underpants ceased to be identi ed with masculinity, they
became associated with the sexual allure of the female genitals. An
enthusiasm for women’s underwear is linked with cross-dressing,
and many transvestites have emphasized the appeal of feminine
“panties,” in contrast to the unappealing characteristics of both
men’s pants and underpants. Diane Kendall, the American
correspondent for the English transvestite magazine Repartee, titles
her column “Pampered in Panties” and often writes about “the
ecstasy of wearing panties.” In one column she declared: “Couldn’t
many of us say, ‘My panties, my panties, my kingdom for a sweet
pair of panties—and a woman who will put me in them.’”21 Not all
panties are equal, however. “There is a GREAT di erence in panties,”
Kendall told me. “Most are not all that pretty.” Her favorite brand
she describes as “precious, very feminine, darling, lovely, sweet,
adorable, yummies” and “so pretty!” Much as she loves her other
items of lingerie, “panties are the creme de la creme, the very
foundation (no pun intended) of dressing in wonderful girls’ clothes.
Many of us, most of us I would guess, got their start [cross-]dressing
by rst putting on a pair of panties.”22 Clinical studies also indicate
that cross-dressers often begin with one article of clothing (often
underwear or shoes) before adopting a complete female costume.
One transvestite, who had begun masturbating with his mother’s
underwear at the age of twelve, recalled: “I began to want more
than women’s panties.”23
 Although underwear plays a role in the history of fetishist
literature, it does not seem to have been quite as popular as high
heels or tight-laced corsets, LOVER OF LINGERIE wrote to London Life in
1933 to request “an increase in the ‘undie’ correspondence.” There
were many letters on high heels, tight-lacing, and rubber
mackintoshes, he observed, but he would like to see more “detailed
descriptions of entrancing undies.” He praised in particular the
letters that looked back longingly to Edwardian underpants: “None
were better than the many letters dealing with the charm of the
snowy white cambric knickers of several years back, with their
glorious ne lace and gay ribbons—which, alas, seem to have gone,
never to return.”24
 Fetish underpants by the Diana Slip Company, ca. 1935 .
Many underwear fetishists have nostalgically favored the
luxurious, frou-frou styles associated with the Belle Epoch. In the
1930s, the Diana Slip Company designed and sold a variety of
fetishistic underpants, including several of historical inspiration,
such as the “Pantalon 1905” and “Le Frou-Frou.” The company also
sold other panties emphasizing fabric and color symbolism. The
“Pantalon Amoureuse” was made of black lace appliqueed with a
red satin heart. There were also “eccentric” models, made of rabbit
fur or fake leopard fur.
“Undercover News,” a story of transvestism written in the 1960s,
describes “cute panty briefs of leather that could be locked to the
body with a tiny lock and key, one-piece chemisettes of diaphanous
latex that tted like a second skin... and other ingeniously made
intimates.”25 Underwear here both evokes bondage and replaces the
body itself. Irving Klaw’s famous erotic photographs include both
decorative versions of conventional underwear and items resembling
chastity belts. Frederick’s of Hollywood and Ecstasy Lingerie, by
contrast, emphasized easy access with “crotchless panties,”
“accentuated with black lace.” A rubber-fetishist magazine featured
both protective and crotchless panties, the latter with a choice of
air- lled “lips” or “a frilly slit.” “Candy pants,” edible bikini-style
underpants for men and women, were a fad in the 1970s. Approved
for human consumption by the Food and Drug Administration,
avors included hot chocolate, banana split, and wild cherry.26
Underwear Bandits and No-Panty Cafes
“Mr. Z. was a 27-year-old lawyer who contacted us because of
occasional bouts of impotence,” reported sex researchers William
Masters, Virginia Johnson, and Robert Kolodny in a case study
entitled “The Underwear Bandit.” He “had a striking fetish for
women’s panties,” without which he experienced almost no sexual
arousal. Moreover, “only used panties with a female odor would
excite him.” “Over the previous decade, he had stolen more than
500 pairs of panties.” Even on his honeymoon, he slipped away to a
laundromat, stole some panties, and masturbated with them.27
Kra t-Ebing also reported on a forty- ve-year-old shoemaker
who was caught stealing women’s underwear; the police found more
than 300 petticoats, chemises, and drawers (underpants) at his
residence.28 The impulse to collect (often to steal) numerous
examples of the fetish object has been frequently observed in the
clinical literature. Stekel referred to it as the fetishist’s “harem
cult.”29
An article in the Economist reported that “police in Japan are
trying to curb an unsavoury trade.” Apparently, businessmen had
stocked ninety vending machines in Tokyo with used underpants
“guaranteed to have been worn by a Japanese schoolgirl.” More
than $200,000 worth of used panties had already been sold, at
$3,000 (almost $30) each. The police were investigating whether
the businessmen could be prosecuted for selling antiques without a
license or, alternatively, for committing fraud, if it could be proved
that the panties had not, in fact, been worn by schoolgirls.30
 It is commonly believed that fetishism is a speci cally Western
perversion, but the evidence indicates otherwise. Although Japan
does not have a history of Judeo-Christian “puritanism” about the
naked body, this does not mean that it has no body taboos; there is,
for example, a strong legal prohibition against the visual
representation of female pubic hair. Underpants are, of course, an
imported Western fashion that became popular in Japan only in the
early twentieth century. But as early as the 1920s, the Japanese
writer Nagai Kafu described no-pan kisa (no-panty cafes), where the
waitresses wore no underpants. In 1981, Ian Bur-uma reported on
similar cafes, designed to expose the waitresses’ underpants; frilly
panties decorated the walls, and there were panty auctions. Nicholas
Borno also mentioned a faux no-panty cafe in Osaka, with a special
glass ceiling; patrons sat in a room below and rubbernecked. The
waitresses allegedly wore panties decorated with drawings of the
female genitals, and the business was closed down after one actually
took her panties o . Unsuspecting Japanese women at public events
are also subject to an extremely instrusive degree of voyeurism:
“One video artiste even invented a special mini-dolly which could
allow an upward-pointing camera to be moved along the ground by
remote control.” The ubiquity in Japan of panty voyeurism is so
great that not only specialist fetish magazines, but also mainstream
periodicals cater to it.31
When panties replace genitals as the primary source of erotic
exitement, psychiatrists tend to speculate that there is an underlying
phobia with respect to either the female genitals or the act of
intercourse. Because the genitals are concealed by underpants, there
is a tantalizing ambiguity—brilliantly exploited in Eric Kroll’s
photograph of a woman who seems to have a penis in her pants.
Pornography indicates that a fetishistic interest in underpants is also
frequently related either to an interest in anal intercourse or to a
sadomasochistic obsession with the buttocks as the site of corporal
punishment.
Underpants also provide tactile and olfactory stimuli. The feel of
underpants is frequently mentioned in erotic sources and may be
related to fabric fetishism. The sexologist Magnus Hirshfeld
recorded a tragicomic case involving a woman whose husband
wanted her to wear annelette knickers during their sexual
intercourse. Flannelette is “nice and soft,” he argued. But she was
“miserable” because she regarded the fetish as a personal insult.
“Now, if he had asked me to wear silk!” said the lady, “but a
common material like annelette!” (Eventually, he wore them
himself, saying that “he wanted to occupy the woman’s place during
the act.”32)
Some studies of fetishism suggest that fetish objects can be
roughly divided into “smellies” and “touchies.” The fetishistic
interest in the smell of used panties is highly signi cant, because it
demonstrates that those characteristics that appeal especially to
fetishists may not always be those that other men and women most
enjoy. Although many women like lingerie, most would be disgusted
by the thought of anything but clean underwear. (And yet disgust
and desire do seem to be closely related in the unconscious.) Smelly
fetishes may indicate an obsession with bathroom functions, which
would seem to imply an “infantile” perspective on sexuality.
Coprophilia may be associated with buttocks fetishism and, by
extension, panty fetishism. It is quite common, though, for both men
and women (and mammals in general) to respond sexually to
certain types of olfactory stimuli.
The erotic signi cance of underpants in any given case is
contingent on a variety of contextual elements. To a considerable
extent, voyeurism directed toward underpants falls within the realm
of “normal” fetishizing male sexuality. Pornographic magazines
carry titles such as 69 Hot Panties, Panty Babes, and Panty Passions.
Peek-A-Boo Pussy and Pussies & Lace might also allude to panty
fetishism. Homosexuals may also fetishize male underpants, which
veil the sight of the other man’s penis. Sexologists note that some
men “collect panties from sexual conquests, and some men take a
pair of their lover’s underwear with them when they travel.... This is
true in gay relationships also.” But there seems to be a di erence
between those men who masturbate, faut de mieux, “associating the
panties with a speci c person,” and “true” fetishists who are
primarily aroused by the smell or feel of the panties themselves.33
Panty Raid
“Parity Raid” is a story written for transvestites. Robert Stoller has
analyzed it in his essay “Pornography and Perversion,” reprinted in
Pervei’sion . I would like to continue his interpretation, focusing
speci cally on underwear imagery. The story begins with the hero,
Bruce King, making a one-man panty raid on a college sorority as
part of his fraternity initiation. He is both nervous and excited:
Suppose he did not succeed in this panty raid? Suppose he
failed to come back with the booty—a pair of lacy-fringed
bloomers or skin-tight peach panties, the silk-and-satin slip
with red bows for straps, perhaps a panty-girdle or two, not
to mention the thigh-length black mesh stage hose! His
buddies at the fraternity might think less of him.34
As Stoller has pointed out, the plot device of a fraternity initiation
serves to normalize and valorize the protagonist’s act of stealing
women’s underwear. After all, real fraternity boys have conducted
panty raids, so one needn’t think there is anything bizarre about
stealing women’s underwear. It is not an inner compulsion, but his
“buddies” who are forcing him to do it.
“He stealthily made his way around to the rear entrance” of the
sorority. There, hanging on a clothesline, was “the lingerie he would
soon possess.” And now I would like you to notice the highly
detailed description of the various items of lingerie:
He stared at the waist cincher combined with a panty. The
shirred edging was embroidered with tiny silk and satin blue
roses, matching the velvet blue of the reinforced crotch.
Beside it was a star white honest-to-goodness baby doll
out t. The straps of the bra part were milky-white, looping
around the armpits; the sheer fabric was bewitching as it
ounched in the cool wind. Four tiny heart-shaped buttons
of pure silk were on the front. The lace front paneling
 matched the pleated Bikini panties. Bruce grinned. It sure
would be interesting to see a girl wear such a baby doll
out t! And to catch her by surprise would really make him a
hero!
Stoller argues that this fantasy expresses a high level of hostility
toward women, a point I would not dispute. But hostility toward
women is a standard feature of much pornography; I would rather
have you think about how the author’s lavish attention to clothing
details would bore most readers. For transvestites, however, the
descriptions of materials, trimmings, and designs are enthralling in
and of themselves.
But why should “milky-white” bra straps be exciting? Most
transvestites are heterosexual, Stoller notes, although they also
identify with women. “Considering intimacy with a living woman to
be desirable but dangerous, they substitute her inert clothes for her
living skin.”35 In place of the breast, they focus on the bra; in place
of silky skin, “pure silk”; instead of a living virgin, “virginal white”
panties. If panties equal genitals, then the emphasis on lacy, frilly
panties may allude to curly public hair. Every sartorial detail
corresponds symbolically to a physical or emotional aspect of
femininity: “soft,” “blushing,” “pure,” “skin-tight.”
Suddenly, just as he is reaching for a pair of lacy panties, Bruce
is surrounded by sorority girls, “some wearing satin slacks, others
silk shorts”—hardly the usual coed styles, but answering to the
transvestites’ enthusiasm for exaggeratedly feminine fabrics. The
“victorious vixens” seize Bruce, who struggles, but is quickly
overwhelmed and bound with “silken robe belts.” He cries for help,
but his mouth is “ lled with a silky-soft sheer stocking.” But women
are not only soft—their long sharp ngernails gouge into his
“muscular esh.”
The amazons’ leader, Lori, combines male and female attributes:
6 feet tall, “proudly erect, her heaving bosom thrust forth,” she
wears “a tight tting buckled beauty of a pure satin dress,” with a
pleated skirt “which shivered like so many leather strings with each
movement.” Notice the key adjectives: tight and buckled (for
constriction and bondage). Notice also how the author seems to shift
fashion fantasy in midstream: Lori’s dress is satin, but it looks like
leather strings (whips?). “Lori’s waist was captivated by a hugh [sic
for huge] patent leather belt of shining black; the contrasting silver
buckle resembled a lock, with a tiny keyhole which de ed entrance
and exit.” Shiny black patent leather is a classic fetish material, and
the black/silver contrast is not uncommon. But the buckle is
especially interesting; a psychoanalytical reading would stress that
this hole will not be penetrated.
And, in fact, although the cover illustration shows the women
dressed in their underwear, in the story itself Bruce alone is stripped
of his outer apparel; “he was thankful he wore protective boxer
shorts.” The women then produce a pair of “virginal white” rubber
panties, padded at the hip—a grotesque con ation of feminine and
infantile clothing. “Sandra hooked both thumbs at the waistline of
this awesome gure-training, skin-tight, rubbery pantie—and S-T-R-
E-T-C-H-E-D! It yawned like a baby’s mouth and snapped back with
a little ‘pop.’ “They pull o his boxer shorts (“good boys shouldn’t
wear such sloppy things”), leaving him only his athletic supporter,
which they mockingly compare to a G-string. “Behave yourself, or
we’ll take that away too.” The “innocent looking panties” into which
they force him are “excruciatingly tight... bondage.” According to
Stoller, this fantasy re-creates the transvestite’s traumatic childhood
memories of being forcibly stripped of his masculinity by hostile
female relatives.
The fantasy attempts to repair this humiliating trauma by
eroticizing it. The cross-dresser identi es with the aggressor and, in
e ect, declares that he is successful as a woman, while still
remaining a man with an erect penis. Certainly, Bruce began to
enjoy the transformation: “Bruce stepped into the silky legs of the
bloomer. It felt cool, silky-soft, sensuously intimate.” In a sense, he
is having sex with the feminine underpants. But he is also
identifying with the feminine role and rejecting masculinity as
inferior: “He rather enjoyed such soft, lmy fabric; it was so unlike
the harsh, cha ng and sloppy men’s boxer trunks which are
anything but attractive.”
He admires himself in the mirror: “His hips undulated
seductively beneath the transparent bloomers.... Now he could
understand why so many women spent their last dollars upon lmy
lingerie. It made them so... so... seductive!” Mirror-sex plays an
important role in fetishistic masturbation. But Lori smirks, hinting at
a homosexual subtext: “You’re beginning to look good already. The
other boys in the frat house will give you a rousing welcome when
you come back... dressed like a perfect lady!” Feminine clothing
makes him modest, “and he tasted the resentment often swallowed
by meek females when their privacy is invaded.” He, too, su ers to
look beautiful: The tight garter belt “bit with sharp teeth-like pain
into his hip-bones.” But it was worth it: He would “fool the boys
into thinking he was a girl.... Clothes can make the man! And these
clothes made him feel just great!”36
Men’s Underwear
Men’s underwear has seldom carried the same erotic connotations as
women’s underwear, for the reason that men’s bodies have not
usually been interpreted primarily in sexual terms—although the
fetishizing of male underwear has a signi cant history within the
gay subculture. In contrast to the wide variety of female
undergarments, there are few male garments, principally underpants
and undershirts, most of which have tended to be quite plain—
although, again, there is actually more variety in color, material,
and style than one might assume. Moreover, even plain white cotton
T-shirts and briefs can carry an erotic charge.
The white cotton undershirt, for example, was an important gay
signi er as early as the 1930s. Richard Martin, the curator of
costume at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, has analyzed how the
undershirt became a fetish garment of “the homospectatorial
imagination.” Because the exposure of the undershirt was associated
with working-class men, the garment acquired connotations of
virility, especially since it also delineated the musculature of the
male torso.37 Already by the 1950s, the image of Marlon Brando in
a white undershirt helped popularize this appeal within the
heterosexual imagination as well.
Gay erotica has also emphasized the appeal of genitals bulging
provocatively from within a pair of underpants or a jock strap.
Generally speaking, the scantier the underwear, the greater its
perceived erotic appeal. Boxer shorts are looser and cover more area
than briefs, so boxers have usually been perceived as more
conservative and less erotic. The development in the 1960s of the
men’s bikini brief, therefore, marked a signi cant advance in erotic
design. Although there are entire books devoted to the sex appeal of
women’s bikini bathing suits, it is less commonly recognized that
both bikini underwear and swim trunks have also been an erotic
style for men.
For women and men alike, the bikini has functioned primarily as
the scantiest permissible cache-sexe, but for men it also represented
an intense “crotch-consciousness.” In this respect, its appeal is
similar to that of tight blue jeans—another clothing item that gay
men fetishized as early as the 1930s. By the 1960s, heterosexuals
also acknowledged that blue jeans exercised a “strong sex appeal.”
According to Rodney Bennett-England, author of Dress Optional,
“The more tight- tting the jeans, the greater the emphasis of leg
contours and, as the Penthouse reader so aptly described it, the
‘overt bulge of masculinity.’ “38 To improve the bulge, some men
used padded jock straps.
A variety of erotic underwear styles for men existed by the
1960s. “There are transparent briefs, kinky briefs, soft leather briefs,
underwear made of rubber, PVC and many other fabrics that o er
sexual excitement or stimulation,” noted Bennett-England.39 Mail-
order catalogues advertised items such as the “Posing Strap.... Gives
the maximum support with a minimum of brief.” There were also
sheer shorts and boxers “for your private muscle building sessions!”
And even the so-called diaper: “Show your physique o to
advantage in our jersey diaper—one size only because it’s adjustable
to any size thru its tie sides!” (Available in “Jungle Red” or “Flesh.”)
Jock straps came in black, white, jungle red, esh, pink, yellow,
light blue, and kelly green.40
By the 1970s, even large manufacturers like Jockey had begun to
emphasize the erotic appeal of men’s underwear. Then in the early
1980s, Calvin Klein began advertising underwear for men and
women. At rst, however, the mainstream press focused on the fact
that Klein was marketing men’s-style underwear—to women. Time
reported nervously on Klein’s “Gender Benders,” complaining that
the string bikini looked like an athletic supporter, while the boxer
shorts still had a “controversial” y opening. “It’s sexier with the
y,” said Klein. Women’s Wear Daily described men’s-style
underwear as “the hottest look in women’s lingerie since the bikini
brief.”41
But the puritanism and homophobia of American society made it
seem shocking to emphasize male sexual beauty. Bruce Weber’s
photographs of god-like men clad only in their underwear were thus
much more profoundly radical than his images of women in
androgenous underwear. Beginning in 1982, Weber and Klein
collaborated to produce the rst openly erotic men’s underwear
advertisements. Soon gigantic billboards loomed over the cityscape,
depicting half-naked muscular male torsos in pure white underpants
that bulged provocatively.42 It was said at the time that Klein had
put the “balls” back in underpants.
A decade later, Klein saw a photograph on the cover of Rolling
Stone of the rap singer Marky Mark wearing a pair of underpants.
(Stripping down to his Calvins was part of the singer’s stage act.)
Soon Steven Meisel was photographing Marky Mark for Klein’s
underwear advertisements. One of the most overtly sexual
photographs showed the scowling bare-chested performer wearing
white mid-thigh underpants and grabbing his crotch. It had already
become a fashion for young urban men to wear their trousers hung
low, revealing the waistband of their underpants. Now the style was
even incorporated into the women’s fashion show at Chanel, and
soon many types of “designer” underpants appeared.
In the past, it was the mark of a slob to walk around the house in
his underwear. But by the 1990s, mail-order catalogues were lled
with photographs of people lounging around in their underwear.
The emergence of men’s underwear as fashion re ects changing
roles for men and a continued breakdown of sexual taboos. There is
still a powerful taboo against penis exposure, however, so
underwear exposure is the closest you can get to full male nudity.
There is also the “style factor.” Fashion has become increasingly
body-conscious, and underwear implies the body more closely than
does any other garment.43
 All this is not evidence of underwear fetishism per se, only the
usual male fetishizing, since the focus is still overwhelmingly on the
body. But fetishism and fetishizing overlap. There are gay
“underwear fetish fans” who are “turned on red hot by undies,”44
although they seem to be fewer than those who are turned on by
leather, rubber, and uniforms. Photographs of men in underpants
may serve primarily as an adjunct to penis fetishism.

Times Square billboard, 1982 . (Andy Levin)

Black Stockings and Pointed Bras
A list of men’s sexually oriented periodicals at the Kinsey Institute
included Black Garter, Black Lace, Black Satin, Black Silk Stockings,
Black Stockings, Lingerie Libertines, Nifty Nylons, Nylon Jungle, Rouge,
Sable, Satan and Lace (that’s satan, not satin ; a magazine for
transvestites and transsexuals is called Satin and Lace), Silk, Silk
Stockings, Silky, Silky Sirens, Skirt, Slip and Gaiter, Stocking Parade,
Velvet, and Velvet Touch . Not all were fetish magazines {Velvet was
more like Penthouse), but many shared a focus on themes that
appeal especially strongly to fetishists.
Many of the titles sound quaint because garters, although long
associated with sex, have essentially disappeared (except for
weddings), while stockings have largely been replaced by the more
impenetrable barrier of pantyhose. An article in the men’s magazine
the Nylon Jungle raised the issue of the threatened demise of a long-
standing fetish object. Garters had long since vanished, the author
argued, but they had been replaced by garter belts, whose straps
“tracing their taut resolute line over the thigh contours, have proved
to be every bit as popular with male beauty-lovers as frilly leg bands
were.” But were garter belts and stockings now to be replaced by
pantyhose? The magazine insisted defensively that “sales of
pantyhose have been disappointing, except among under-21s and
the ‘with-it’ college crowd. The average American woman, where
she is permitted a freedom of choice, seems to prefer the garter
belt... and refuses to be talked into expensive fads.”45 By 1967,
however, this was patently untrue.
 The modern girl had “a problem,” insisted another writer: She
was trapped in “lingerie limbo... torn between her love for all the
wonderfully delicate bits of feminine wear and the new go-go mod
styles that have a male in uence.” Her girlfriends were constantly
trying to talk her into “going mod all the way... but she balked at
the heavy hose and other wooly type garments imported from
England.” The only good aspect of mod fashion were the white go-
go boots, “which go so well with her nylons.”46
This is another interesting example of the fetishist tendency to
prefer old-fashioned garments. It could be argued that fetishists
simply “imprint” on the clothing of their mothers’ generation.
Indeed, it has been playfully suggested that future fetishists are even
now becoming obsessed with Reeboks.47 But this is too simplistic.
Certain garments (like high-heeled shoes, stockings, and garter
belts) have particular characteristics that lend themselves to being
fetishized.
The legs are the pathway to the genitals. Stockings lead the
viewer’s eyes up the legs, while garter belts frame the genitals. For
many men, the e ect is like arrows pointing to the promised land,
an e ect accentuated when the stockings have seams up the back.
“Hot Legs—The ups and downs of the stocking and garter industry
fully exposed!”48 But the tops of stockings trace a line across the
thighs, just as a gunslinger draws a line in the sand to indicate: Go
no farther! Black stockings, in particular, graphically isolate part of
the leg, and stop a few inches below the genitals.
 It is no accident that so many underwear magazines have the
word black in the title. Black is a symbolically signi cant color. For
one of Wilhelm Stekel’s patients (who liked to imagine women
ghting), “the black stocking symbolizes the branded, sinful woman.
The white stocking is a symbol of purity.”49 But black also provides
the greatest contrast with light-colored esh. Indeed, more than a
century ago, La Vie parisiemie warned that men who really like black
underwear “need to see white skin emerging from a black sheath,
because white skin in itself hardly arouses them any more.”50 I have
not systematically studied fetishistic pornography using black
models, but it seems to show a greater reliance on white, yellow,
pink, and red underwear.
Not only color but also materials carry erotic connotations. “The
gossamer-thin fabric of fully fashioned nylon or silk, clinging
enticingly to smooth limbs, represents the most re ned essence of
‘second skinism’ imaginable,” writes Stephanie Jones. Sheer black
stockings, in particular, are “part of the protective armour of those
beautiful but untouchable creatures whom submissives love to
worship.” Or, as Terence Sellers observed in The Correct Sadist,
stockings are “resonant of forbidden women. The stockings’s
combination of silky invisibility with delicate restraint quickens the
slavish heart with its tantalizing irony. The esh of a woman’s leg is
made rm, uniform and tense by a stocking.”51 As silk and even
nylon have declined in popularity, attention has increasingly
focused on rubber. In the American comic strip “Subjugated in
Rubber,” the dominant female tells her cross-dressing male
companion: “Quit squirming until I slip these delightful thin rubber
stockings on your scrawny legs to ensheathe your unsightly villous
limbs in scintillating slick latex.”52
“True” stocking fetishists are apparently “quite rare,” although
many men have a “preference” for stockings.53 Stockings or
pantyhose are also sometimes associated with fantasies of
asphixiation, involving either strangling the woman or auto-
strangulation for erotic purposes. Pornographic images frequently
pair black stockings with long black gloves. Like stockings, gloves
are rarely chosen as the primary fetish object, but they are
frequently incorporated into a fetish costume or fantasy.
The fetishist correspondences not infrequently mentioned “long,
tight kid gloves.”54 There were also occasional references to
“punishment gloves” that could be locked, “tight-laced gloves” lined
with Vaseline, and the whipping of tightly gloved hands.55
According to the Goncourt diary, the German kaiser demanded that
a Parisian cocotte “wait for him... stark naked except for a pair of
long black gloves.... Those black gloves, of course, are a
characteristic of sadism.... And they recall the black stockings in
[Felicien] Rops’s obscene etchings.”56
“Covering the organs of touch... gloves... emphasize sexual
insinuations by simultaneously reining in and stimulating desire,”
writes Philippe Perrot.57Nineteenth-century etiquette journals
warned that it was improper to touch a lady’s bare hand, while
pornography associates the hand with masturbation (hence the
expression “hand job”). In the Middle Ages, references to scented
gloves evoked the female genitals, and gloves were exchanged
between lovers, much as engagement rings are today.58
Just as shoe fetishists are fascinated by the aesthetic and
structural details of the fetish object, so also are glove fetishists,
who may favor particular materials (such as kid, velvet, satin,
leather, and rubber), colors, or designs. Gauntlets and surgeons’
gloves have their enthusiasts, for example, and there are those who
like gloves with the ngers cut o . Strippers frequently use gloves,
and Rita Hay-worth’s famous scene in Gilda used the removal of a
glove to allude to a striptease while evading the censors.59
“The gloved hand becomes a symbol of power much as a booted
foot,” argued one book on fetishism.60 Some of the same erotic
charge is attached to long gloves as to high boots. Gloves that
extend up to the elbows or even to the armpits (such as opera
gloves) tend to be regarded as much sexier than short gloves. Nor is
this belief restricted to fetishists: In the late nineteenth century,
Godey’s Lady’s Book advised readers:
For formal occasions greet your escort completely attired
and ready to depart. Your gloves should be donned in the
privacy of your boudoir and of course worn during the
entire evening.... However, afternoon gloves are short and
can, on occasion, be put on in the presence of your escort
since the shortness of the glove deprives the act of the
immodest intimacy connected with formal, longer gloves.61
It does not take too Freudian an imagination to see the similarities
between a hand and arm inserted into a long rubber glove and a
penis sheathed in a condom.
It may be harder to see that the breast can also be perceived as a
phallic symbol. Yet in “Undercover News,” the body of the female
character is described in phallic terms: “Her breasts stood out
pointedly like the horns of an angry bull ready to gore through its
imprisonment.”62 Its bras had “perfect points,” boasted a Frederick’s
of Hollywood catalogue; “magic circles separate and shape each
breast... urging them UP and OUT for lots of front projection.”63
The correlation between breast and penis also exists in other
cultures; the Sam-bia of New Guinea, for example, explicitly
associate semen and milk.64
Big breasts seem “fancy” to some men, while small breasts seem
“plain”—a fairly obvious projection upward of anxiety about both
penis size and female genitalia.65 Breasts, of course, are also the
most important secondary sexual characteristic of female mammals,
and are thus a prime symbol of feminine sexual attractiveness. It has
often been argued that “breast fetishism” is especially ubiquitous in
America, whether because of bottle-feeding, widespread sexual
prudery, or the cultural “worship of the Mother and all she
symbolizes.”66 This is much too simplistic, yet a degree of
fetishizing of the breasts is de nitely normative within the society.
There are many pornographic titles like Big Bazooms, Tit Fuckers,
Titty Milk, and Mother Jugs .
“One might reasonably expect that brassieres would be almost as
popular as underpants,” writes one sex researcher, “but inexplicably
they are seldom fetish items despite our culture’s emphasis on
breasts as sexual centers of interest.”67Perhaps this is not so
inexplicable, however, since the breasts are not nearly so tabooed as
the genitals. Life once ran a cover story entitled “Hurrah for the
Bra!” and it is hard to imagine a mass-circulation American
magazine featuring a close-up of underpants. Some feminists have
recently bared their breasts in public demonstrations: “Breasts are
not sexual organs,” argue the protesters.68 Conversely, in ancient
Rome, professional prostitutes were extremely reluctant to remove
the strophium (a proto-brassiere), even during sex.69
The brassiere as we know it is a twentieth-century invention that
appeared around 1906, when the corset no longer functioned
adequately as a bust supporter. Although any kind of brassiere can
be fetishized, certain styles have a more obvious appeal. Generally
speaking, the more pointed, structured, shiny, revealing, big, nipple-
exposing, and/or decorated the brassiere, the more likely it is to be
fetishized.
 Cone bra and cache-sexe. (Paula Klaw/Movie Star News)
“You know the cone bra I made for Madonna?” said Jean-Paul
Gaultier. “I made the rst one for my teddy bear... because he had
no bra I had to invent one. I did it with paper and pins.” When
Gaultier rst began showing his fashions, some journalists accused
him of being sexist. The cone bra, in particular, looked like the kind
of fetish underwear worn in Irving Klaw’s notorious bondage
photographs. But Gaultier insisted that “it was like a fantasy
exaggerated.... It was a joke and at the same time it was radical and
nice.” He admitted, though, that the cone bra was also, perhaps, “a
little aggressive.”70 The torpedo-shaped breast is not necessarily
fetishistic, however. In the 1940s and 1950s, bras with circular
whirlpool cups were fashionable, and Gaultier has obviously drawn
on the history of brassiere design, just as he has been inspired by
structured girdles of the 1950s and early 1960s.
Gaultier put men in high heels, “and I put them in shnets and
in corsets—but they were corsets for men.” He made it clear,
however, that the cone bras worn by Madonna’s showboys were not
his idea: “That was Madonna. I don’t put bras on guys.”71 As a
quintessentially female garment, brassieres appeal strongly to
transvestites, however. In “Panty Raid,” it is the brassiere that really
begins to turn Bruce into a woman:
“See, Bruce,” she dangled it before him, as if threatening his
manhood, “this brassiere has in-up pushup pads and foam
rubber shapemakers. This low-plunge front gives real
cleavage; to a girl, it’s breathtakingly sinful. To you,” she
made a throaty laugh, “it’ll be very wicked. It’s lightly
underwired in the cups which are made of pure satin. The
front has hooks which are kept rm to your masculine chest
by rubber sides—but your chest is undergoing a
transformation. It’ll soon be a nicely shaped bosom.”72
Structured foundation garments (like corsets, girdles, and brassieres)
that “support,” shape, and con ne parts of the body are especially
likely to be fetishized. One cross-dresser reported that “only those
[women’s garments] that ‘captured’ esh are interesting to him:
girdles, bras, stockings.”73
The hard and “nasty” side of structured bras and girdles
appealed strongly to the punks, who were reacting against the bra-
less hippy generation. The punks subversively reappropriated the
much maligned symbols of sexual repression and de antly wore
thrift-store bras and girdles as outer clothing. Indeed, the entire
trend of underwear-as-outerwear, which has played such an
important role over the past decade, must be understood in part as
an attempt to demystify sexual taboos. (Vivienne Westwood was
also inspired by the use of brassieres as status symbols in the Third
World.) Once the exposed brassiere had emerged as an avant-garde
style, the mainstream fashion industry followed suit.
 Dress with cone breasts by Jean-Paul Gaultier . (Roxanne Lowit)
But within this di erent context, the constructed meaning of the
style was transformed. According to designer Josie Natori,
It used to be shocking to wear a bustier. Now it’s nothing....
Women are much more daring.... It used to be that you
could just express yourself in the bedroom, now you can
 express yourself all day long. Women are saying, “I used to
burn my bra. Now I’m going to aunt it.”74
But the discourse on lingerie-inspired fashion is polarized.
Is the exposure of underwear really “sex as liberation”? Fashion
journalist Charlotte DuCann has complained that the fashion
industry
assumes that by aunting her crotch, a woman is asserting
some kind of individual freedom. Well, she isn’t; it just
makes her look like a prick-teaser. Nor is the fashionable
irting with S&M a sign that woman is strong, for there she
is using her sex not as a liberating force but as a controlling
power (this is in no way to be confused with the ironic
bondage of punk).75
Freudian Slip
Underclothes are described in the garment industry as “intimate
body fashions.” Because underpants cover the genitals, they receive
the most attention from underwear fetishists, but slips, camisoles,
petticoats, nightgowns, and negligees are also associated with
nakedness and sex.76 “The woman’s chemise... is the white symbol
of her modesty, that one must neither touch nor look at too closely,”
warned one writer in 1861.77 But by the 1890s, lingerie was
increasingly being made in more diaphanous fabrics, decorated with
lace and embroidery, and dyed in seductive colors. “These frills cost
more than my dresses,” boasted the 1950s stripper Cat Girl. “I really
splurge on sumptuous satin nighties and sheer negligees.”78
 By the 1970s, “people used to go right into the lingerie
department and buy a little slip to wear to go discoing,” recalled
Paul Cavaco of Harper’s Bazaar . In the 1980s, the hard appeal of
brassieres and girdles dominated fashion, but by the 1990s the focus
was back on soft lingerie, like the slip dress. According to Josie
Natori, “Lingerie-inspired clothing is here to stay, because... it’s
provocative in a positive manner.”79

Decorative underwear . (Paula Klaw/Movie Star News)

Feminists have objected to the public display of underwear and
to eroticized images of women in underwear, on the grounds that
they constitute a type of visual sexual harassment. The revival of
“sexy” lingerie has also been interpreted as part of an antifeminist
backlash. While describing it as “the merchandizing exploitation of
a cliché,” Betty Friedan also noted that “it is true that women are
becoming free to express themselves as women.”80 The problem is
that one cannot control the way others “read” one’s clothed
appearance. As fashion journalist Woody Hochswender put it,
“Hookerish street looks, we are told, are examples of designers
giving modern women a style that co-opts the stereotypes and
actually liberates the wearer. Speaking as a man, I can de nitely say
that this is a subtle point that will be entirely lost on my fellow
animals.”81
The fashion for underwear-as-outerwear is signi cant because it
violates traditional taboos, which distinguish sharply between
public and private behavior. Miniskirts permit “frequent glimpses of
underpants,” so panties will soon lose much of their “erotic allure,”
worried one writer a quarter of a century ago.82This turned out not
to be true, but body exposure did escalate. Underwear has long been
perceived as secret, sexual clothing. Yet it is increasingly paraded
down the catwalk.
An element of upscale striptease was introduced even at
conservative couture houses like Dior, where a model walked down
the runway, opened her satin cape, and revealed a necklace and
jeweled underpants. Designers with a younger clientele are even
more daring. Ghost’s Fall 1994 collection featured “eye-scorching
underwear” by Deborah Marquit “that practically eclipsed the
clothes.”83 Skirts were slit to above the belly button, and tops were
open down the front to reveal red lace panty briefs, neon bras, and
thigh-high black stockings. Thierry Mugler has made underfashions
out metal, leather, and latex. But the kinkiest underwear of recent
years is probably Vivienne Westwood’s fake-fur panties, which
dramatize the role that materials play in fashion and fetishism.

Underwear as outerwear by Gianni Versace, 1994 . (M. Chandoha

Valentino)
Rubber dress by Syren from Body Worship, 1994 . (Amy Gunther,
model/Partner Agency; photographed by Aaron Cobbett)
 six
Second Skin
“To put it bluntly, rubber is power and sex,” argued Vogue’s Candice
Bushnell after trying on various tight, shiny out ts.1 Only a few
years ago, rubber was a “hard-core” fetish fabric, and it was a bit
kinky when the January 1989 issue of British Vogue carried a “Skin
on Skin” feature devoted to “the sensuous precision of smooth black
leather,” showing clothes by such august fashion houses as Gucci
and Chanel.2 Today fashion discourse increasingly weds feminist
rhetoric with fetishist imagery. Supermodel Naomi Campbell posed
in stiletto heels and a rubber dress, and calmly noted that the dress
“makes a squeaky sound when you put it on. You’re supposed to put
on talcum powder rst so it won’t stick.” Asked whether her clothes
were demeaning to women, Campbell replied, “Grown women can
do whatever they please.”3
Certain materials have a powerful erotic appeal by virtue of their
tactile, olfactory, and visual characteristics as well as their symbolic
associations. But the popularity of speci c fetish materials has
changed over time, in part because of technological developments,
such as the invention of polyvinyl chloride (PVC). There also seems
to have been a historical shift from “feminine” to “masculine”
materials. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the focus
was on soft materials, such as satin and fur, which are primarily
associated with women’s clothing. But by the late twentieth century,
hard materials, especially leather and rubber, have tended to
dominate. This is not an absolute change, but the shifting emphasis
is signi cant for its implications about the psychology of erotic
sensations and sexual images of the self. This chapter will survey the
history of material fetishism, ending with a look at the human skin
itself, tattooed and pierced.
Venus in Furs
Leopold von Sacher-Masoch (after whom “masochism” is named)
begged his mistress “to wear furs as often as possible, especially
when... behaving cruelly.”4In his notorious erotic novel, Venus in
Furs, the idolized woman is never absolutely naked, but always in
some form of fetishized adornment: “At the sight of her lying on the
red velvet cushions, her precious body peeping out between the
folds of sable, I realized how powerfully sensuality and lust are
aroused by esh that is only partly revealed.”5 Scopophilia
(voyeurism, erotic gazing) is here linked with tactile eroticism
(velvet cushions and a sable fur coat).6
“The supple furs greedily caressed her cold marble body. Her left
arm... lay like a sleeping swan amid the dark sable, while her right
hand toyed with the whip.”7 Woman is both cold as death and warm
as fur. According to Masoch, a woman in a fur coat was like a “great
cat, a powerful electric battery.” The sensation of fur against skin is
peculiar and prickling, charged with static electricity. It has been
explicitly compared to the sensation of agellation: “In this sense,
also, furs and the whip go together.” The penetrating odor of fur
attracted Masoch, who told his wife that he longed to plunge his
face into the warm smell of her furs, which he associated with the
idea of woman as “one who commands” and, perhaps, woman as
beast.8
Fur is warm, beautiful, and prestigious. But as one fur fetishist,
N. N., told Kra t-Ebing,
The mere aesthetic e ect, the beauty of costly furs, to which
everyone is more or less susceptible, and which... also plays
so important a role in fashion... explains nothing here.
Beautiful furs have the same aesthetic e ect on me as on
normal individuals.... Such things, when skillfully used
enhance female beauty, and thus, under certain
circumstances, may have an indirect sensual e ect.9
But the “direct, powerful, sensual e ect” that he experienced as a
fetishist “is something entirely di erent from simple aesthetic
pleasure”—although “that does not prevent me from demanding in
my fetish a whole series of aesthetic qualities in form, style, colour,
etc.” Indeed, he liked only “very thick, ne, smooth and rather long
hair, that stands out like that of the so-called bearded furs,” such as
sable. He disliked short furs, such as seal and ermine (although they
were expensive and prestigious), nor did he like “hair” that was
“overlong.”10
 Man licking the shoe of a woman in a fur coat, ca. 1937. (Kinsey
Institute)
Freud believed that fur and velvet symbolized the pubic hair, in
the midst of which (according to the male child’s fantasy) he should
have seen a penis. Slang terms such as pussy, beaver, and fur pie
support this association. Signi cantly, N. N. found the idea of a man
wearing fur “very unpleasant, repugnant, and disgusting.” Nor did
he like to see “an old or ugly woman clad in beautiful furs, because
contradicting feelings are thus aroused.”11
 Fur fetishism seems rather rare. Magnus Hirshfeld reported a
case of a man who loved “fur and crutches!”12 Another twentieth-
century case involved a Canadian engineer whose sex life primarily
consisted of wrapping himself in a fur coat, looking in a mirror, and
masturbating. “One night he broke into a fur store, undressed
himself, and indulged in an orgy of fur eroticism.” Then he began
stealing fur coats. After he got out of jail, he took to wearing a fur
diaper around the house.13
Velvet fetishism is also uncommon, although Kra t-Ebing
reported a few cases. “In a brothel a man was known under the
name of ‘Velvet’. He would dress a sympathetic [prostitute] with a
garment made of black velvet, and would excite and satisfy his
sexual desires simply by stroking his face with a corner of her
velvety dress, not touching any other part of the person at all.”14
There were a fair number of letters about velvet in the London Life
correspondence, many with a sadomasochistic edge. “Velvet forms
an excellent disciplinary material,” wrote one person.15 “But that is
to miss the real fascination of velvet,” argued another
correspondent:
Velvet is an ultra-feminine fabric—the exquisite beauty of
its lustrous pile, its delicious ripple of silky sheen, and
voluptuous depths of ravishing shade, show up to best
advantage in the frocks... of the opposite sex. This is because
there is more draping... and consequently more thrilling
play of light and shade in the folds.
 It is rather peculiar... that this divine material seems to
have no psychological attraction for women. They wear it in
the fashion, and certain type of women, aware of its
seductive e ect upon men, use it as their stock in trade.16
The letter was signed BLACK VELVET.
Velvet’s thick, soft pile easily evokes the idea of sensual pleasure.
Certain drinks are described as going down like velvet, and the
word velvet is slang for money won in gambling. The cult movie Blue
Velvet used an old popular song to evoke the idea of decadence.
The Fascination of Satin
“The Fascination of Satin is a Fetish, and a thorough-going one at
that,” declared Cosmopolite in 1911. “The strange and mysterious
attraction this material, with its overshot woof and the highly
nished surface, has for the most virile and clean-minded of men, is
an unfathomable puzzle.” Apart from its “appeal to the eye,” what
was its charm? “Can any lady... give me a hint?... [D]o you think
the lures of your exquisite femininity are enhanced by it?” This
“new fetish” did not seem to be a common one, and the enthusiasm
for “rich, costly, shimmering satin” seemed to exist quite apart from
the more usual fetishes for “Tiny Waists, High Heels, etc.” Still,
Cosmopolite had received a certain number of letters on the subject.
ENCHANTED dressed his wife “in nothing but satin—morning, noon,
and night.... ‘If I saw her in anything else,’ he writes, ‘I believe I
would hate her!’ “17
In Nana, Emile Zola’s famous novel about prostitution in Second
Empire Paris, the heroine’s friend goes by the name Satin. During
his brief career as a fashion journalist, the poet Stéphane Mallarmé
signed many of his articles with the pseudonym MISS SATIN. Satin is a
material usually made of silk, but more recently also nylon,
polyester, and other bers, woven in such a way as to produce a
glossy surface and a soft, slippery texture. There are many other
types of silk with di erent properties. Ta eta, for example, is a
crisp, smooth plain weave; chi on is diaphanous; and so on. But all
silks are smooth, soft, lustrous, and luxurious. And since the early
nineteenth century, they have tended in Western countries to be
reserved for women’s apparel.
Kra t-Ebing described several cases of silk fetishism: “On 22nd
September, 1881, V. was arrested in the streets of Paris whilst he
interfered with the silk dresses of a lady in a manner which aroused
the suspicion of his being a pick-pocket.” In actuality, he was
engaged in “touching] the silk gowns of ladies, which always
produced ejaculation.... What grati ed him more than being with
the prettiest woman was to put on a silk petticoat when going to
bed.”18 Some fetishists behaved in a more hostile manner. “In July,
1891, Alfred Bachman, aged twenty- ve, locksmith, was brought
before Judge N . . . . in Berlin” for having cut ladies’ silk dresses
with a knife. “The culprit defended himself in a peculiar manner. An
irresistible impulse forced him to approach women wearing silk
dresses. The touch of the silk material gave him a feeling of delight.”
Although Bachman “had often been punished before” and admitted
entertaining a “great hatred of the whole female sex,” he received a
sentence of only six months’ imprisonment.19
 Gaetan Clerambault’s Passion erotique des éto es chez la femme
described three women who had “a morbid attraction, principally
sexual, for certain fabrics, especially silk, and on the occasion of this
passion, some kleptomaniac impulses.”20In a recent essay,
“Masquerading Women, Pathologized Men,” Jann Matlock
questioned Clerambault’s insistence that only men could be fetishists
and suggested that his patients might have been female fetishists,
not just hysterics and kleptomaniacs who stole fabric and
masturbated with it.21 The fact that Cleram-bault himself seems to
have had an obsessive passion for fabric complicates the issue
further.
The enthusiasm for satin and silk tended to wane as the
twentieth century wore on, although a trumpet player wrote to the
Biz-zarre Club to say that satin and ta eta were his favorite fabrics.
He added that he had “always been a slave when it comes to
women.”22 Pornographic paperbacks like Punished in Silk (about a
burglar who is captured by “a beautiful blonde vixen” and forced to
cross-dress) and Mistress in Satin also emphasize the association with
powerful femininity.23The transvestite story “Undercover News”
contrasts several fetish fabrics. The dominant female, Sadia, is
described as wearing a “steel grey suit of shining leather.” The
submissive TV wears a “white satin waist cincher,” a “lilac colored
sheath of stretchable rubber,” and a ta eta petticoat—all examples
of the “exotic and ultra in feminine fashions.”24
The Rubber Devotee
Rubber is a smooth, waterproof, elastic material, made by
chemically treating the sap of the rubber tree. (There are also
similar synthetic substances.) One of the commonest uses for rubber
has been to make raincoats and hats, although it is also used for
domestic items like rubber gloves and, indeed, wherever
waterproo ng is important (e.g., for rubber panties, rubber sheets,
and rubber tubes). There were, obviously, no rubber fetishists before
rubber clothing was invented (in the nineteenth century). An
advertisement in a London newspaper of 1870 o ered a
“GENTLEMAN’S NIGHTSHIRT with attached NIGHT CAP in MACINTOSH CLOTH.”
It allegedly “induced a free and healthy perspiration... and cured
rheumatism.”25 Rubber baby pants date from before the First World
War, as do occasional “health” clothes. By the 1920s, a variety of
rubber clothes were available in Germany, England, and the United
States.
The single most popular rubber fetish was the mackintosh, a
rubberized cloth raincoat. One of the oldest fetishist organizations
in the world is the Mackintosh Society, which is based in England.
Letters about mackintosh enthusiasm appeared in London Life as
early as 1926 and continued for many years. SILK MAC wrote, “My
hubby and I are looking forward so much to... the letters from
macintosh fans... and the lovely descriptions of gorgeous macintosh
out ts.” Her husband especially liked to hear the “lovely rustling
swish of rubber.... I could see how he enjoyed every movement I
made, so you can guess that I was very happy, too, as long as I gave
him so simple a pleasure.” Then they turned on the gramophone and
danced, their macs swishing and rustling, as she anticipated giving
him a “lovely macintosh evening.”26
RUBBER LOVER reported that he and LADY RUBBER LOVER had similar
thrilling experiences.27 Many correspondents described themselves
as heterosexual couples. Although we cannot automatically believe
the letters (quite the reverse), external evidence supports the picture
of a shared clothing fetish. Some readers, like CHROMIUM KID, were
skeptical, however:
I am a new reader of your little paper, and I think it very
amusing, as I thought that only we Americans ran snappy
little rags like that! I think the macintosh fans are very
funny, because either they are indulging in a good “leg pull”
or we are missing a thrill over here. A couple of us tried
“maccing,” but the cold, slippery, rubberised inside of the
macintosh gave me—not a thrill, but a chill.28
MACAMOUR replied tartly that “it is absurd for a non-sensitive
person... such as ‘Chromium’ to endeavour to make the wearing of
macintosh material a new ‘craze’ just because it is indulged in by a
few as a luxury.” Signi cantly, MACAMOUR regretted that no special
mackintosh clothes were available readymade. “Being a mere male,
I cannot make the garments that appeal to me, and have seeked [sic]
in vain for an understanding person who could do so for me. Neither
have I met a partner who could share the thrill of maccing.”29 There
were, however, some small cottage industries beginning to produce
rubber shirts, corsets, and other “garments that elastically t the
gure.”30
 What was “the mystery of mackintosh”? “I... feel so safe when I
have its scented rubber folds tightly wrapped around me,” reported
one person. “And when the fascinating rustle drowned every other
sound it was heavenly.”31 With the outbreak of the Second World
War and “the threat of air raids,” enthusiasts like OILSKIN wrote to
suggest that dressing in rubber prepared one against “gas attack.”
He submitted a photograph of his wife wearing a jacket, trousers,
hood, gloves, gas mask, and high-heeled shoes.32 Gas masks of
Second World War vintage are still sold in a number of fetish
clothing shops. (But at the London fetish shop Skin Two, I overheard
two young, art-student types disparaging “those old mackintosh
people.”)
Meanwhile, in North America in the 1950s, the Biz-zarre Club
circulated letters from “rubber devotees.” One correspondent even
broke into verse: “Compelled by moods he can’t explain, yet bound
by senseless fear, / He longs to wander in the rain, encased in
rubber gear.” Describing himself as a “‘little boy,’ age 28 . . . At
times a ‘naughty boy,’ “but basically a “soft, kind-hearted guy,” he
said he was looking for a “stern but gentle gal / To ‘baby’ him, but
‘make him mind,’ and also be a pal.”33 One clinical study of a
mackintosh fetishist quoted him as saying, “The di erence between
a macintosh and a woman is this—the mac has no power over me
and can’t hit back. Being inanimate, it can’t withdraw its
a ection.”34
 OILSKINS wife dressed in rubber, as seen in London Life. (Peter Farrer
Collection)
The author of The Kinky Crowd suggested that rubber fetishists
tended to be either “infantile” or “masochistic.”35 The masochists,
he argued, were responding to painful but exciting childhood
memories of medical paraphernalia, while the infantile rubber
lovers had, in childhood, become xated on rubber as a result of
contact with objects like rubber pants, bedsheets, and the nipples for
baby bottles. Bedwetters, in particular, had humiliating memories of
rubber sheets. These ideas were not popular with rubber fetishists.
As the editor of Rubber News put it, “No matter how true it may be .
. . no matter how important it may be in your mind, WE WILL NOT
PRINT any letter that traces a liking for rubber back to infantile
bedwetting!”36
Rubber lovers sometimes had problems sharing their enthusiasm.
Mr. P (from London) wrote to Rubber News to report that his friend
Doris was happy to don a thick latex rubber “punishment suit” and
submit to being gagged and “tied in a complex way with white
nylon cord, which shows up nicely against the black.” But another
Mr. P (from Belfast) reported that although his wife was willing to
wear a shiny blue PVC raincoat, he had not yet told her about the
“leather hood and ball gag” that he had bought “and used furtively”
on himself. Nor had he gured out a way to suggest that she wear a
corset: “Could something be done here, emphasizing her gure for
my pleasure? What joy the prospect o ers if only she responds, dare
I dream of my H shrouded in rubber, constrained, submissive,
impotent?” The editor of Rubber News sent him a copy of A Wife’s
Guide to the Rubber Craze (“invaluable for rubber fans with a
domestic problem”). Another Mrs. P (from Somerset) believed that
“if wives only knew the hold they can exercise on their husbands by
wearing rubber, more would do so; after all what is the di erence in
wearing rubber or silk panties if they please you.” Her husband
might “look at other girls in macs... but we have a mutual secret
which we share and nothing can make up for that.”37
Many rubber fans like to be tightly encased in their fetish
material, from head to toe. Indeed, with rubber, as with corsets, we
might in many cases speak of a constriction fetish. Rubber, however,
like all the fetishes, has multiple sources of appeal. “It ‘feels’ nice,
which is important to people living in an insecure world.” Rubber
garments “are KIND to you, carressing your skin, comforting and
soothing.” But “worn next to the skin,” rubber is also “pleasantly
stimulating.”38

Two women in rubber gear, ca. 1960. (Kinsey Institue)

Rubber is, of course, a slang word for condom, and it has been
suggested that “the rubber suits [fetishists] wear represent a
condom. When they put them on, they feel like giant, animated
penises. This would be tremendously exciting to a man who was
psychically castrated.”39
Since about 1970, manufacturers have tended to replace rubber
with plastic, but this did not end rubber fetishism so much as it
expanded the category to include rubber, plastic, PVC, and latex.
The invention of PVC was especially important because it made the
“wet look” possible, adding a new twist to the old enthusiasm for
raincoats. As early as 1960, fashion designer Mary Quant did a wet-
look collection. Rubber entered fashion again in the 1980s via the
high-tech school of design. From industrial-rubber oor coverings, it
was only a step to rubber jewelry and accessories. Although
ostensibly an “industrial” look, rubber clothing inevitably also
carried the idea of fetishism.
In recent years, rubber and plastic fetish clothing has fallen into
two basic categories: (1) stereotypically female and infantile attire,
and (2) second-skin garments. The rst category has little direct
relationship with contemporary fashion. Frilly white rubber aprons
for “sissy maids” and plastic panties (in colors such as pink, pale
blue, yellow, and clear) for “adult male babies” have a limited
appeal.40 But other types of rubberized garments (usually in black
and red) have had much more of an impact on fashion. Although
rubber fetishists carry body enclosure to extremes, the skin-tight
silhouette has proved attractive to a wide audience, especially as
mainstream fashion has become increasingly body conscious.
Latex clothing has blurred “the line between fetish and fashion,”
reported Robert Stoller’s SM informant Ron. “Becky and I have only
recently begun to experiment with this... because it’s not an
original, authentic fetish of ours.... Mostly it’s fashion... it looks
sexy.” They noticed a fetish in uence on swim-wear; then club kids
began experimenting with wet-look vinyl and latex fashions. But the
experience of wearing latex also proved signi cant: It “turns your
whole body into a lubricating erogenous surface.”41
People with “a primary rubber fetish” are attracted to this
physical side: It is “very con ning” and “unbelievably hot”; “the
clothes are very uncomfortable.” “I admire rubber fetishists for...
their courage in being so out-of-the-closet about something deeply
rooted in their childhood,” says Ron. “I think latex fetishism is very
much [about] constriction and containment. Latex deals with their
alienated, hostile feelings toward uncontrollable bodily functions....
Too strange even for me.” If latex is “introverted” and “auto-erotic,”
leather (Ron’s fetish) is more “symbolic,” a “statement to society,”
“like being tattooed and pierced.” But latex and leather do
“interact”: “[T]he things that make leather attractive are even more
true of latex: that it’s con ning, that it feels like skin but isn’t....
Tight- tting leather is pretty de ning. But tight- tting latex is like
being sprayed with paint.”42
Rubber and leather fetishes often coexist. In one case study of
1914, a Swiss fetishist became excited just by looking in the window
of a rubber-goods store; he enjoyed tying rubber tubing around his
penis and scrotum, inserting rubber tubes in his rectum, and
covering his penis with condoms. He also liked wearing “leather
aprons, a leather-lined corset (which he made himself)... a leather
headgear and mask... black leather gloves,” and so on. His favorite
fetish object was the glove. He said that “the rubber had a more
tactile, the leather a more optical, e ect on him.”43
Leathersex
Leather is the skin of an animal that has had the hair removed and
has been tanned. It has long been used to make objects such as
harnesses, saddles, and whips, as well as items of clothing, such as
shoes, belts, jackets, blacksmith’s aprons, armor, gloves, and
handbags. Leather clothing existed even before the Neolithic period,
but leather has been a fetish material only since the nineteenth
century, and most early accounts subordinate it to shoe fetishism.
Early fetishists stressed the smell and shine of leather, with patent
leather being particularly valued. In the twentieth century, however,
the symbolic associations of leather have become increasingly
important.
Leather seems to enter the mainstream of fashion history via the
German connection. “If we’re... looking for the roots of the black
leather jacket in the twentieth century, then we have to look no
further than the German aviators of World War I,” writes Mick
Farren.44 After dutifully citing the Red Baron’s leather ight jacket,
however, Farrell moves on to more signi cant associations with the
Nazis. In his history of the black leather jacket, there are numerous
references to the Gestapo and the SS, along with photographs of
Hitler, Rommel, Goring, and a Luftwa e ghter pilot—all in black
leather.
The mystique of the motorcycle is also strongly associated with
leather and sex, a connection that we will later explore at greater
length. On a purely functional level, motorcyclists wear leather
because of its durable and protective qualities. If a bike tips over or
crashes, leather clothing o ers considerable protection. But already
by the 1950s, leather motorcycle gear was strongly associated with
motorcycle gangs, as in Marlon Brando’s movie The Wild Ones. Black
leather has also long been associated with sadomasochistic sex. In
the 1920s and 1930s, many pornographic photographs showed
people dressed in black leather and engaged in SM activities. Not all
sadomasochists are into leather (nor are all leather fetishists into
SM), but there is considerable overlap.
Although many leather fetishists are heterosexual, a signi cant
gay “leath-erman” subculture also exists. The Leatherman’s Handbook
contains a wealth of information about the symbolism of leather
clothing. Particularly interesting are the results of a questionnaire
that Larry Townsend distributed, although unfortunately he gives no
indication of his methodology or even the number of respondents.
Those surveyed were asked to respond yes or no to the statement “I
like leather,” followed by various categories of clothing: “jackets,
jeans, caps, belts, [followed by the types of belt] wide, studded,
kidney, Sam Brown, [then] gloves, chaps, shorts, jocks, aprons,
sheets, thongs, masks, gags, other, boots, short, tall, extra tall, dull,
polished, oiled, clean, dirty, new, old, engineer, motorcycle,
cowboy, cop, lineman, logging, jodhpurs, construction, lace up,
spurs, other.”45
 Illustration by Stephen for the Gold Coast, 1964. (Kinsey Institue)
Many other sources also indicate the long-standing popularity of
leather clothes, especially those with military, motorcycle, or
cowboy associations—items like the Sam Brown belt (which crosses
the chest), the so-called Master hat, and heavy boots. At the
Mineshaft, a homosexual SM club in New York, there was
traditionally a dress code, forbidding patrons to enter if they were
wearing suits, ties, dress pants (including chinos and designer
jeans), rugby shirts, “disco-drag,” formal shoes, or sneakers. If
patrons did not arrive wearing leather, they could put the o ending
clothes in the checkroom and enter seminaked. A leather body
harness is “good for parading around in bars,” declared the
catalogue Leather and Things, which also advertised leather chaps
(that laced up the sides), leather chastity belts (that laced up the
penis), and executioner’s hoods (the Masochist’s version had no eye,
ear, or nose holes), as well as leather dog collars, studded bracelets,
and a fur-lined leather blindfold.46 The Marquis de Suede (a custom
leather manufacturer) made items like masks and straitjackets.
“You’re really heavily into leather, aren’t you?” asked the
protagonist of the gay SM novel Hard Leather.
“You know the kind of sex I like don’t you?”
“I think so. Real rough, so it must seem. From the way
you’re dressed.”47
The Gay Men’s Popular Fiction collection at Cornell University
includes a variety of titles, mostly from the late 1970s and early
1980s, a few from the 1960s, on leather-related themes: Leather and
Sex, Hard Leather, Leather Hustler, Leather Sadist, Leather Lust,
Breaking into Leather, Leather Whipper, Leather Drifter, Leather Bound
and Beaten, Leather Licker, Leather Slaves, Lust for Leather, Leather
Boy, Hell-bound in Leather, Leather Sucker, English Leather, Leather
Bound, Slave to Leather, Leather Closet, Kiss of Leather, Run Little
Leatherboy, The Leather Queens, Into Leather, and Leather Lover. Video
titles included Leather Boys, Leather Lover, Leather Narcissus, and
Leathermen.
 Townsend wrote: “Big man... Big man in leather... You gotta earn
the right to wear it... can you take what you like to give?”48 But
according to Michael Grumley, author of Hard Corps, “There is
surface leather and deep leather, real leather and patent.... The hard
corps leather sensibility involves the use of leather in both sex
display and SM ritual.” For some masochists, “the most potent
leather would be that tanned and dried from one’s own hide, from
the esh of one’s own body.”49 But although leather undeniably had
“attitude,” in reality wearing leather did not necessarily imply any
position on SM.
Moreover, although leather functions as an international sign for
sadomasochism, it has also come to signify homosexuality. In an
article in the Village Voice, Vito Russo joked about how “leather
‘gear’ has become synonymous with queer.” Leather was both
“savage” and “civilized,” and therefore well suited to “Huns,
hostesses, and homosexuals.” He repeated the campy old joke:
Q: Why do motorcycle gangs wear leather?
A: Because chi on wrinkles so easily.
Leather was both “a symbol of the counterculture and an emblem of
status.”50
“Leather was gay sexuality stripped of being nice,” recalled the
novelist John Preston. Because it was confrontational, it was radical.
At a certain point, though, like many men were who were “really
into S/M,” Preston “stopped wearing regimental leather.” “It’s a
better bet to dress against the fashion, if you really want rough
sex.”51 For lesbians also, leather evokes both SM and gay sex. The
“leather dyke” is as familiar today as the “lipstick lesbian.” Lesbians
did not merely copy the leatherman look. They combined it with
elements from punk street fashion to create a powerful new style.
“When leather becomes fashionable, it loses its bite,” Grumley
complained.52But it is precisely because it has a bite that leather
became fashionable. “Kinky” leather clothing moved onto the
fashion runways in the 1960s, when Yves Saint Laurent became the
rst major designer to make leather fashionable. Leather was
especially fashionable in the 1970s, as both homosexuality and
sadomasochism (“the last taboo”) became much more widely
accepted. A rash of pornographic movies appeared with titles like
Angelique in Black Leather (for heterosexuals) and Nights in Black
Leather (for homosexuals), as well as art lms like Maitresse, which
featured leather and rubber dominatrix costumes by Karl Lagerfeld.
Punk street style and high fashion alike emphasized leather.
Genevieve Reynolds said that she rst knew she was “a leather
fetishist... when I was in a punk fashion store in the chic part of Los
Angeles. I’m eternally grateful to punk fashion because it made lots
of leather and accessories easily available to us perverts!”53 By the
early 1980s, leather was ubiquitous.
“Leather clothing used to be linked mainly with motorcycle
toughs, Gestapo thugs and the S-M crowd.” But now “it’s the ‘fabric’
everyone wants... the denim of the ‘80s... but luxe!” Leather is
versatile, going from day to night, and it doesn’t wrinkle. But the
real reasons for its appeal had more to do with its symbolism.
Leather had the “attitude” and “integrity” of denim. “Women feel
good in leather,” Armani told Newsweek. “It is such a sumptuous
material... women are ready to spend fortunes for leather.” And it is
sensual. “Nothing else feels like leather next to your skin,” said
Donna Karan. “It’s the ultimate sensuality! And a marvelous texture
contrast with silk, chi on, tweed.”54 Soon the black leather jacket
was reborn as an apricot suede blouson.
According to British fashion writer Colin McDowell, the origin of
leather’s appeal lies in the fact that “the unaroused male penis [is]
pink and pathetic.” Leather provides a reassuring symbol of virile
male sexuality. Not only does a leather jacket “disguise” the body’s
“inadequacies” and provide a sense of “heightened sexual
awareness,” but it also functions as an icon of butch, raunchy, even
brutal, masculinity—and raw power.55
Leather by Thierry Muglet, 1977. (Roxanne Lowit)
 Scott in leather, 1994. (Travis Hutchison)
Today the preferred fetish material remains leather, which has
become an international “sign” of “radical sex” as in the term
leathersex. The attraction of leather is overdetermined: The sensory
characteristics associated with it include a hard, shiny feel; a
distinctive smell; and a creaking sound. Symbolically, leather is
equated with pain, power, “animalistic and predatory impulses”—
and masculinity. But there are gradually shifting fashions in fetish
costume. The “ultimate fetish material,” argues sex radical Pat
Califa, “would combine the protective qualities of leather (its e ect
as armor) with rubber’s ability to conform to the body’s shape and
heighten sensory awareness.”56
Tattooing and Piercing
The fetishistic appeal of a second skin extends to decorating the
body itself. Practices such as tattooing and piercing are of ancient
and worldwide historical signi cance; they are not necessarily
fetishistic or erotic. In many traditional cultures, they are ritualistic
insignia and/or social markers. Fetishistic body modi cation is
di erent, since it is undertaken by the individual for personal
reasons, often having to do with erotic pleasure and pain.
Today tattoos and body-piercing have become increasingly
stylish; even fashion models get delicate piercing, and modern
bohemians sport pierced lips, cheeks, nipples, tongues, and genitals.
Yet it was only twenty years ago that the piercing of Robert
Mapplethorpe’s nipples was genuinely shocking. It is interesting,
therefore, to see how fetishistic body modi cation began to be
publicized in the early twentieth century. Already in the 1880s,
letters to the Family Doctor described “boys having their ears, noses,
and breasts pierced, and rings inserted in them, at a foreign private
school.”57 In 1899, there was a rash of letters in Society on “the
latest fashionable craze,” for men and women to have their breasts
pierced.58 London Life reported extensively on the “Pleasures of
Piercing” in the 1930s. AUNTIE’S IDOL wrote:
My young man wanted me to have my nostrils and cheeks
pierced to please him, and as he has given me a lovely pair
 of white kid boots with 8 inch heels laced up the back, I
decided to have them done.... The feeling was thrilling.... It’s
wonderful what pleasure one can get out of being pierced
and of wearing rings and pendants from one’s ears, cheeks
and nose.59
In the 1970s, enthusiasts argued that “during the Aquarian Age
man’s natural inclination to decoration will ourish. Tattooing and
piercing will be very popular.... As we ‘civilized’ people have no...
rites of passage... many individuals nd a void in their lives which
the piercing experience often lls.”60 Charles Gatewood, a
photographer whose book Primitives documents twenty- ve years of
subculture body modi cation, argues that “body art has to do with
taking control of your life and your body... transforming to facilitate
personal change and growth.” In the 1970s, it was partly just
hedonistic escapism, he says, but now piercing is related to “a lot of
New Age thinking.”61
Piercing entered contemporary culture via the gay, SM, and
fetish subcultures. Pierced and tattooed “leather boys and girls” at
the Los Angeles club Fuck! told a journalist: “This is about being in
people’s faces. It’s me saying, ‘I am a freak. I am queer. I’m not like
you.’ “Part of it was pure “shock value” and directly related to “the
punk thing.”62 By the 1990s, body-piercing had moved into the
mainstream.
“Fetish or Fashion?” asked the New York Times in an article
describing how top fashion models Naomi Campbell and Christy
Turlington had had their navels pierced. Jean-Paul Gaultier used
heavily tattooed and pierced models to show a collection featuring
tattoo patterns on sheer T-shirts and both real and fake piercing
jewelry. According to Gaultier, “It was not only about that primitive
thing, but also about decoration. I like the idea of the body as a
piece of art... It is the punk in uence, but it is also something
spiritual.”63
“The idea of beauty is changing radically,” some argue. Shaved
heads, tattoos, pierced navels, even pierced tongues and genitals
have become more common.64As with any fashion trend, the shock
value of body play then declines. And, indeed, piercing and
tattooing may already be somewhat passe: “Nose rings no longer
merit a second glance on the street.” While some turn to laser
treatment to remove their tattoos, others have moved on to new
types of body modi cation, such as branding, “the stu of cattle
drives.”65 A public exhibition of branding was recently canceled in
New York (for legal reasons), and branding is also practiced as an
initiation rite at some African-American fraternities.
There are rumors that a fad for minor amputations has begun in
Europe. The most ubiquitous type of skin decoration, however,
continues to be make-up, especially lipstick. In fact, a case could be
made that cosmetics are one of the more popular sexual fetishes.
Catwoman on the cover of a fetish magazine. (Peter Czernich)
 seven
Fashion, Fetish, Fantasy
The clothes that we choose to wear, like our conscious lives in
general, are for the most part rmly under the control of what
psychoanalysts call the Reality Principle (i.e., you can’t always get
what you want). Our lives, therefore, necessarily involve tacking
between the Pleasure Principle and the Reality Principle. In fantasy,
however, we are free from reality testing and can openly pursue
pleasure.1 There are also times in social life when clothing functions
as a kind of masquerade costume, subversively disguising the
individual in the apparel of a fantasy self.
Some fetishists carry their clothing xation beyond individual
fetish objects, adopting entire specialized ensembles that
incorporate a variety of clothing fetishes: a corset over a leather
catsuit with high-heeled boots, long gloves, and so on. To initiates,
these costumes convey rather precise meanings about the kind of
sex o ered and/or solicited, and the theatrical play within which
sexual contact will occur. Even when the sexual activity is limited to
masturbation, the fetishist may use a mirror as an aid to fantasy.
The costume is thus part of an elaborate erotic drama.
Participants in these ritualized sexual encounters tend to wear
costumes drawn from a limited range of dress-up roles, among the
most common being the dominatrix, the master, the slave, the biker,
the cowboy, the man in uniform, the nurse, the maid, the harem
girl, the amazon, and the boy-girl. This type of sartorial role-playing
involving gender and sexual stereotypes bears obvious similarities to
mainstream cultural phenomena. Specialized costume houses report
that many clients go for fantasy “fashions with a high sleaze factor
—femmes fatales, French maids, show girls, sexy nurses, [and] sexy
policewomen.”2 Many of these fetish costumes also have fashionable
counterparts whose psychological signi cance and cultural
symbolism can be analyzed.
Who Wields the Whip?
The 1992 “bondage” collection presented by the Italian fashion
designer Gianni Versace was controversial. Was it “Chic or Cruel?”
asked James Servin in the New York Times. Some women took
o ense at Versace’s SM clothes, describing them as exploitative and
misogynistic. But other women interpreted the domi-natrix look as a
positive amazonian statement—couture Catwoman. You will recall
that in the movie Batman Returns, Michelle Pfei er’s Catwoman is
costumed in skintight rubber to resemble a dominatrix. To get a PG
rating, the producers did cut the scene where she tied Batman to the
bed, but her lessons with a “whip-master” are prominently
displayed. Versace himself insisted that “women are strong” and
argued that as women have become liberated, this includes the
freedom to be sexually aggressive. Asked to comment on whether
Versace’s fashions empowered or degraded women, Holly Brubach
(then the New Yorker’s fashion columnist) wisely said: “It could go
either way. Either the Versace woman is wielding the whip, or she’s
the one who’s harnessed and being ridden around the room wearing
a collar and a leash.”3
 Pornographic photographs from the early twentieth century
already display the classic iconography of fetishism, in conjunction
with the theme of dominance and submission. The vocabulary of
images employed is standardized and instantly recognizable. Just as
there are monsters and murders in horror lms, horses and guns in
Westerns, so in a certain genre of pornography, there are high heels,
corsets, leather, lingerie, and whips. I would suggest that a
connection exists between this type of pornographic imagery and
contemporary fashion, which increasingly foregrounds issues of sex
and power. The feelings of unease that some women experience
when confronted with fetish fashion bear signi cant similarities to
the much more vocal debate over “pornography” and the attempt to
censor art that allegedly degrades women or depicts images of
“perversion.” Conversely, the attraction that many women have to
fashion—and fetish fashion, in particular—may be related to their
desire to assert themselves as independent sexual beings.
Signi cantly, the dominatrix fantasy was actively embraced by a
segment of the fashion press, as editors gambled that the image of a
powerful and sexy woman would appeal to more female readers
than it o ended. Thus, the fashion magazine Harper’s Bazaar
jokingly captioned one photograph: “Heavy metal, light bondage:
The dominatrix’s straps and stilettos will not be denied.... Black
wool/silk bra top about $2100, black spandex and leather hot pants,
about $700, and stilettos with thigh high straps, all from Gianni
Versace.”4
 Who wields the whip? ca. 1935. (Kinsey Institute)
Only a few observers commented on the immediate antecedents
of Versace’s collection: the SM leatherman look popular ever since
the 1970s with some gay men. Versace himself recalled that fteen
years before, he had shown a “similar collection” in Dallas, “and
they turned the lights up on us. They said these clothes belonged
only in a leather bar. And now, last night, there were 200 socialites
in bondage!”5
 Drawing on a design vocabulary associated with leathersex,
Versace created a collection that renewed the look of fashionable
leather by exploiting the charisma associated with “radical” sex. The
collection was less about women’s issues than about rebellious,
transgressive, unapologetic, pleasure-seeking, powerful in-your-face
sex. There are, therefore, two issues that must be addressed: (1) the
feminist critique of “sexist” fashion, and (2) the “co-opting” of
radical sex by the fashion industry. For not only did feminists object
to the style, so did fetishists.
“Versace wrecked that whole look,” complained Randall, owner
of the Caped Crusadist, a custom-made-leather store in Seattle.
“Trendy fashiony stu is out. Now people are into a much harder
look.” “There’s lots of competition about who can come up with the
best fetish costume,” agreed a much-pierced customer in another
Seattle leather store.6 Many feminists, meanwhile, criticized fashion
in general (and the new fetish fashions, in particular) for being
conformist, consum-erist, and, above all, sexist. “I doubt Versace
polled 3,000 women” before designing his clothes, commented
Susan Faludi.7
Contrary to popular belief, however, this is not simply a matter
of “sexist” fashion designers exploiting women or “ripping o ”
sexual minorities. Let’s be clear about this: Versace is not the issue. I
have chosen to discuss his bondage collection because it received so
much press, but many avant-garde designers are exploring fetish
themes, including women like Vivienne Westwood and Betsey
Johnson. And the designers, in turn, are getting many of their ideas
from street fashion and subculture styles. As the English feminist
Elizabeth Wilson points out, “The existence of street fashion
demonstrates that a desire to adorn one’s body is not simply the
result of being duped by the fashion industry and capitalism.”8
A Fetish Is a Story Masquerading as an Object
It is no secret that sexual fantasies are both extremely common and
often “perverse.” Such fantasies may be conscious (as in daydreams)
or unconscious (revealed only by neurotic symptoms). Perverse
fantasies may be repressed; or, if the circumstances are favorable,
they can be transformed into manifest behavior.
Obviously, people who dress up as, for example, master (or
mistress) and slave are acting out a fantasy of some sort. But fantasy
is a complicated concept. As commonly used, the word fantasy
denotes imagination, illusion, exaggerated or unreal images. Thus,
feminists like Susan Faludi argue that Italian fashion designer
Gianni Versace creates “fantasy clothes” that cannot be taken “too
seriously.”9 But fantasy is not just “unreal.” Fantasy also has a
particular psychological meaning, involving the ful llment of
psychic needs. According to psychoanalysts, conscious sex fantasies
overlie certain original fantasies on themes such as castration,
seduction, and the primal scene.10
In her important essay “Pornography and Fantasy,” Elizabeth
Cowie writes, “What is portrayed [in fantasy] is not the object of
desire, but a scenario in which certain wishes are presented.” The
pornographic image of a woman touching her genitals does not
trigger “an automatic stimulus-response” in a heterosexual male
viewer. Rather, it is the staging of “a scene of desire” and a “sign”
whereby the “image of female genitals stands for something else, the
man’s pleasure.” Among the wishes expressed in this image, Cowie
suggests, are the following: She waits for me, she is already excited,
she is showing me her genitals because she wants to see mine.11
What is true of “normal” sexual fantasy is also true of fetishism
—and of fashion. Many people assume that it is “natural” for a man
to be aroused by the sight of a woman’s naked breasts, and
“unnatural” to be excited by her feet or shoes. But human sexuality
involves more than an instinctual response to a programmed
stimulus; we do not go into “heat” and mate like animals. Human
sexuality is constructed. But contrary to what many feminists
believe, it is not learned in the sense of acquiring a set of roles. Boys
do not look at Playboy and learn to like big breasts and view women
as sex objects any more than girls look at Vogue and learn to become
anorexic and passive.
This is such a crude “monkey see, monkey do” model of human
behavior that it is amazing it has achieved such wide currency,
except as an ideological response to the equally reductionist
instinctual model. The nature/culture controversy itself is
simplistically conceived, as though it were even possible to separate
the two. Sexuality is, of course, a biological and evolutionary
phenomenon. (Sex is why we are not single-celled organisms that
reproduce by dividing.) But human sexuality is also characterized by
the desire for pleasure, and people engage in various pleasurable
but nonreproductive behaviors, including masturbation,
homosexuality, kissing, oral-genital sex, and the so-called
perversions.
Sexual arousal is experienced as being instantaneous, but
according to psychoanalysis, sexuality “arises in the emergence of
fantasy,” as from “the most natural biological events emerge
polymorphous pleasures.” The infant nurses; feeding is self-
preservation. But the sucking is also pleasurable, and the breast
becomes the “object of desire,” not simply in and of itself, “but as a
signi er of the lost object which is the satisfaction derived from
sucking the breast.”12 The shoe, like the breast, is a symbol of
pleasure. But the fetish is not only a symbol.
“A fetish is a story masquerading as an object,” writes Robert
Stoller.13 Although the dialogue may be carefully scripted and
endlessly rehearsed, the text itself (or, rather, the subtext) remains
largely unconscious to the fetishist. The adult male fetishist knows
perfectly well that women do not have penises. Nevertheless, on an
unconscious level, he may still be fearful about sexuality, and
especially when he feels emotionally threatened, he may seek to
reassure himself about his manliness by choosing a sexual partner
whose frightening feminine aspects are disguised behind a “veil” of
phallic signi ers. As Louise Kaplan puts it, he needs a fetish, such as
a corset or a pair of thigh-high boots, to “pave the way” if he is
successfully to “enter that temple of doom called the vagina.”14
Many psychiatrists believe that the “Phallic Woman” is, in fact,
“the ubiquitous fantasy in perversions.” Behind all perversions, in
other words, we nd an attempt to deal with an otherwise
unbearable castration anxiety. “Acting out” the fantasy that women
really do have a penis or phallic equivalent is frequently a phase in
the perversion. Although fantasizing or looking at pornography
would be safer than taking the risks associated with play-acting,
“the need for acting out... derives its strength from the orgastic
a rmation of the truth of the primal fantasy, on the one hand, and by
the participation of the outside world on the other. By actually
engaging dramatis personae, the fantasy becomes indisputable
reality.”15
Clothed in Power
We will begin with the costume of the dominatrix, both because it is
the single most important fetish costume and because it has exerted
the greatest in uence on contemporary fashion. When I arranged to
meet the Baroness Varcra, she said that she had red hair and would
be wearing “either a velvet dress with a rubber corset over it—or
standard dominatrix gear.” Myopic as I am, I recognized her from a
distance of fty feet. “It’s important for a Dominatrix to create a
‘look,’ because most of this business is PR,” says Mistress Jacqueline
in her as-told-to memoir, Whips and Kisses: Parting the Leather
Curtain. Items like custom-made form- tting leather minidresses,
studded leather jackets, and thigh-high boots help create a “de nite
image.” Clients’ tastes vary, but, in general, the ideal look is “a
balance of leather and lace.”16 According to Madame Sadi, a
dominatrix should “never bare her breasts and always wear elegant
clothing (high heels, preferably boots, and gloves).”17 Although, in
fact, a dominatrix may sometimes show an expanse of naked thigh
or bosom, it is more common for her to be almost completely
covered by a second skin—from the mask that partially or
completely covers her face down to her stiletto-heeled boots.
Her entire body, in other words, is transformed into an armored
phallus. High-heeled shoes, boots, and gloves are obvious phallic
symbols, as is the whip or riding crop that she often carries. In
addition, the dominatrix often wears a corset, which is also a phallic
symbol, despite being shaped like the female torso, since its boning
makes it hard and sti . A corseted person stands erect. Her victim
(client) may also wear a corset, however, since this item is
frequently associated with rituals of bondage and submission and
with transvestism. Thus, it is not a question of static symbolism (X
equals phallic symbol), or even of multiple phallic symbols, but
rather of an entire erotic drama.
The costume of a dominatrix also implies a scenario in which
certain wishes are expressed. She wears a mask: Therefore, she is
anonymous; I don’t want to know with whom I’m having sex, and if
I don’t know, then perhaps she doesn’t know who I am either. She
looks menacing. In pornographic literature, masks are associated
with torturers, executioners, and burglars. Therefore, I am the
victim, so I’m innocent, or, if guilty, then I’m already being
punished for having sex, so I don’t need to feel ashamed.
The presence of a whip implies a wish that someone should be
beaten. But who? And why? Freud’s famous essay “A Child Is Being
Beaten” throws light on the common fantasy of corporal
punishment, which is not only about beating because the action is
also a metaphor for sex. (“Beat your meat.”) For psychoanalysts, the
whip is a “punishing penis.”18 To whip is also to caress. At the very
least, it involves paying attention to the person being beaten. In the
polarity of passive and active, the conspicuously active person (we
can see her arm move) is the one giving the beating. The passive
gure is the one acted on. It is said to be “hard work” to be a master
or top, and much easier to be a slave or bottom.

German actress Ingrid van Bergen plays a counter-spy disguised as a

“whip girl” in Hamburg’s red-light district during World War II, in The
Counterfeit Traitor, 1962. (Penguin Photo/Bettmann Archive)
 If the dominatrix wears boots, is the slave to be trod on?
Certainly this is what the pornographic stories tell us: He licks the
boot, and she kicks him. He sucks on the stiletto heel, and she
inserts it in his anus. The tap-tap of her heels promises that someone
is coming; the shiny patent leather already looks wet. The high heels
a ect her gait, making her hips and buttocks sway. Since high heels
are a sign of femininity, he knows it is a woman coming—unless it
is a transvestite. The heels are hard and sti and long; they will
walk all over the slave, who loves this evidence of his submission.
Fetishists like Pat Califa reject most aspects of the psychoanalytic
interpretation. She does, however, agree that “the key word to
understand S/M is fantasy. The roles, dialogue, fetish costumes, and
sexual activity are part of a drama or ritual.... The S/M subculture is
a theatre in which sexual dramas can be acted out.”19 Pychoanalytic
studies of fantasy indicate, moreover, that the subject may play
di erent roles—indeed, may play all the roles in any given story.
The male viewer of a pornographic video does not necessarily
identify with only the male character, but also simultaneously with
the female character, with both characters, with the entire mise-en-
scene, and with the role of the voyeur—he who watches. Even,
perhaps, with the boot that is licked.
The overwhelming majority of fetishists are men. Most women
who wear fetish costumes seem to do so either for direct economic
reasons (i.e., they are professional sex workers) or to please their
husbands or boyfriends. This is not to “erase” the existence of those
women who identify themselves as fetishists. In perversion
(probably in all forms of sex), we are dealing with deep fantasies
that should not be glibly con ated with consciously articulated
gender politics.
Clothing itself is generally associated with power, and nakedness
with its lack. Just as the dominatrix is usually fully clothed, so is the
male master. By contrast, the slave, bottom, masochist, or
submissive is often (although not inevitably) stripped naked or
reduced to wearing clothing that exposes breasts, buttocks, and/or
genitals. One master-slave heterosexual couple reports spending
entire weekends with the slave remaining totally naked.20 Nudity
also carries submissive connotations in the titles of pornographic
paperbacks like Naked Teen on a Leash and Naked Wet Wife. The
meaning of fetish clothes, however, depends on the context and
wearer.
If the master’s mask hides the executioner, the slave’s leather
hood implies the victim. The master’s boots are made for stomping,
while the slave is “hobbled” by shoes that may have more than 6-
inch heels and/or very high platforms, to say nothing of multiple
straps and buckles. The corseted dominatrix is powerfully armored;
the corseted cross-dressing slave is in bondage. And yet accounts by
SM adherents uniformly stress that the slave gure is very often the
one “really” in command—indeed, often quite bossy: “Do it harder!
Don’t stop! Not like that, like this!” The real question may not be
Who wields the whip? but rather Who pays? Or: Whose fantasy is
this?
Of Maids and Men
The maid is an obviously submissive role, which indicates the power
di erential implicit in traditional gender stereotypes. In the
nineteenth century, prostitutes in brothels sometimes dressed up as
maids, in dark uniforms punctuated by white aprons and caps. They
also dressed up as brides, nuns, and schoolgirls, all conspicuously
virginal gures. The maid, however, was not virgin but victim,
sexually servicing her master. The theme remains popular today,
when fantasy costume shops report steady sales of so-called French
maid costumes. There are also pornographic lms with titles like
Little French Maid and Maid to Be Spanked.
Transvestites seem particularly fond of dressing up as “sissy
maids,” perhaps because this is such a quintessentially feminine,
slavish role. The transvestite magazine Repartee published a letter
from an expatriate cross-dresser living in Japan who reported on
several television programs:
[M]y favorite has been a cartoon series in which the hero, in
order to be with the girl he loves, since her parents
disapprove of his impoverished background, becomes one of
her maids. The cartoon series then revolves around the maid
and her mistress keeping the secret. Interestingly, the maid
begins to nd herself attractive in black dress, white apron
and cap, and after the girl gets married, decides to stay as
her maid forever. Now that’s a nice fantasy.21
The pornography associated with transvestite SM often features the
man being humiliated—by being put in women’s clothing or
underwear. Yet he ultimately triumphs, since underneath his frilly
skirt (or apron), there is the unmistakable sign of manhood.
The maid’s uniform seems to t perfectly into this scenario of
eroticized humiliation. “Servant’s Clothes Turn on Transvestites,”22
proclaims one article, while books carry titles like Housemaid
Husband and She-Male Slave. Many London prostitute cards feature
images such as a kneeling gure dressed entirely in black rubber
(including a gas mask), except for a white apron. The slogan reads:
“Maid to Dress Correctly.” Another shows a transvestite in a maid’s
cap: “Gentleman Maid to Serve.” A third card depicts a man in a
rubber maid’s uniform (that covers his mouth) with the words:
“Rubber Domination and Uniform Training.”
Although aprons occasionally appear in contemporary women’s
fashion, they have tended to be hard and masculine: black leather
butchers’ aprons, for example, not frilly little white aprons. Nor
have little white caps been fashionable for a century. In their
sartorial self-presentation, modern women do not seem to want to
play the submissive role. The apron as feminine cache-sexe remains
hidden from public view. (But a few designers, such as Vivienne
Westwood and Betsey Johnson, have incorporated maid’s caps into
their runway shows.)
 Fetish maid, 1994. (Centurian/Spartacus)
The costume of the harem girl also evokes a master-slave
typology, together with long-standing and fairly transparent
fantasies about group sex. Nineteenth-century soft-core erotica often
focused on the idea of white sex slaves in the hands of lascivious
Turks. The same theme, minus its racist subtext, was also played out
in movies and television shows like I Dream ofjeannie. Pin-up star
Betty Page posed as a harem girl with a bare midri , a jeweled
brassiere, and diaphanous trousers. There are also contemporary
porn lms like Harem Girls in Bondage. Harem fantasies also, of
course, carry quasi-lesbian overtones, with the master as voyeur.
 While the leather and rubber favored by the dominatrix evoke
power and cover most of the body, the maid and harem girl wear
soft, feminine, semisheer fabrics that lightly veil their anatomy.
Thus, if the dominatrix is the quintessential armored Phallic
Woman, the maid’s apron and the sheer harem trousers evoke an
alternative model of the Veiled Woman. Although popular as fantasy
costumes, neither the maid nor the harem girl has had much impact
on fashion, even though stylists and photographers sometimes play
with the exotic eroticism of the harem girl or the lesbian overtones
of the mistress-maid pair.
We began with the dominatrix as Phallic Woman; when
fetishizing males disguise themselves as men, they also frequently
choose phallic costumes associated with ultra-masculine roles, such
as the cowboy, the motorcyclist, and the soldier or policeman. The
clothing associated with these roles functions as a kind of armor
against the world that protects the wearer’s inner self, while
projecting an image of aggressive masculinity.
Larry Townsend’s The Leatherman’s Handbook insists on the
iconic signi cance of motorcycle clothing:
Intrinsic to the leather scene is the motorcycle and the guy
who rides it. The clothing we all nd so appealing is
primarily designed for the cyclist’s use... sexual appeal of a
leather-clad rider on his great rumbling machine. As a
symbol of phallic might the motorcyclist is the epitome, the
living embodiment of our fetish.23
 The motorcycle itself is a powerful machine with thrusting
pistons and an engine that throbs and roars before the thrill of
taking o , which functions as a metaphor for the “pounding
rhythm” of sexual excitement. The Kinsey Institute contains
numerous examples of sexual imagery featuring men and
motorcycles. In a le on “Fetish-Costume-Leather,” a leatherite is
described as “pulling on his footgear in preparation for some heavy
stomping.” A photograph is captioned: “A leather riding suit can get
pretty warm at times, and a fella might need to unzip and cool
down a bit.” The anonymous copywriter then drew attention to the
“contrast between cool esh tones and the richer qualities of the
leather gear.”24The pornography associated with this constantly
reiterates the idea of man as Sex Machine. Titles include Bang the
Bikers, Biker Buddies, Motorcycle Cops, Nazi Bikers, Rough Rider, and
S&M Bike Cop.
 Horem girl, ca. 1955. (Paula Klaw/Movie Star News)
Townsend’s poll indicated that the leather motorcycle jacket was
interpreted as powerful and desirable: 90 percent of the Sadists
wanted a motorcycle jacket for themselves, although 70 percent of
the Masochists did, too. Leather motorcycle hats and motorcycle
boots were more associated with the Sadists, as were leather belts,
wristbands, gloves, and chaps. (All wanted Levis for themselves.25)
Leather fetishism does not exist in a vacuum. Leather is clearly
associated with certain male types (not just the motorcyclist, but
also the cowboy, soldier, and policeman). Townsend’s research also
associates these roles with “psychodramas I enjoy: obey rules or
else, bootcamp, barracks, classroom, jail, etc.”26 A 1974
advertisement for G.B.M. Leathers demanded: “Are you proud to be
gay, butch, and a man!” A personals service was then o ered “to
only the MEN of S&M, ‘Leather,’ Levis, Denim and Cowboys, Rubber,
Boots and Uniforms.”27
According to The Leatherman’s Handbook, cowboy clothes are
“compatible with leather and jackboots.” The cyclist and cowboy
are brothers. Groups of men “ride horseback and camp out,” wrote
Townsend, wearing “leather chaps over Levis... or maybe over
naked hips and thighs. Even if the group is dressed, at least half will
have stripped to the waist.” Later on, “the group is mostly in the
nude, except for boots,” “tooled boots with pointed toes and
elevated heels,” and cowboy hats.28
Although historically cowboys wore a motley assortment of
cheap clothes, the cowboy as icon is conceived of as wearing Levis
or other tight pants, special boots (often polished, colored, and
decorated high-heeled boots), wide heavy leather belts (sometimes
including gun holsters), leather chaps, fancy shirts and/or fringed
suede jackets, neckerchiefs, and large distinctive hats. Fetishistic
pornography in this category includes titles such as Boots and
Saddles, Cock Crazy Cowboy, Cock-Hungiy Cowboy, The Cocky
Cowboy, Cowpoke, and Hard Horny Cowpokes. Erotic images often
show a man who is naked except for his boots, his hat, and his gun.
Drawing by Tom of Finland, 1911. (Image used by written permission
of the Tom of Finland Foundation, P.O. Box 26658, Los Angeles,
Calif. 90026)
Fetish cowboy in leather chaps, ca. 1960. (Kinsey Institute)
 English fashion designer Vi-vienne Westwood was prosecuted in the
1970s for selling “pornographic” T-shirts. (Vivienne Westwood)
Both the motorcyclist and the cowboy are important gay male
icons. Women’s fashion designers (many of whom are gay men)
have also frequently been inspired by clothing of the cowboy and
the biker. The fashionable cowgirl copies every element in the
macho wardrobe of the cowboy, from his big hat to his polished
boots, and all his leather gear. She is almost a caricature of the
Phallic Woman, and erotic images emphasize her gun and the fact
that she has something big between her legs. The fashionable female
biker has also acquired a permanent place in the pantheon of high
fashion. If Claude Montana dresses women in leather biker jackets,
and Calvin Klein’s advertisements pose them with big, powerful
motorcycles, Thierry Mugler went a step further and created (for his
runway show) a metal bustier that turned the woman herself into
the representation of a motorcycle. Meanwhile, within the sexual
subculture, “the biker look, which was popular among S&M people
for a long time, has kind of gone away. Now they go for a more
high-fashion look.”29
The Cult of the Uniform
Uniforms are perfect for the kind of role-playing characteristic of
fetishistic sex, because when wearing a uniform, the individual is
subsumed by his (or her) role. As they say in the army, one “salutes
the uniform and not the man.” Because the uniform is a symbol of
membership in a group, it suppresses individuality, sometimes
leading “to total depersonalization.” Uniforms also frequently
symbolize authority, evoking fantasies of dominance and
submission.30 Military and police uniforms, in particular, signify
that the wearers are legally endowed with state-sanctioned power.
By contrast, maid’s uniforms imply servility and a lack of power.
Military uniforms are probably the most popular prototype for
the fetishist uniform because they signify hierarchy (some
command, others obey), as well as membership in what was
traditionally an all-male group whose function involves the
legitimate use of physical violence. Soldiers can shoot and stab
without constraint. The erotic connotations of military uniforms
derive, in part, from the sexual excitement that many people
associate with violence and with the relationship between
dominance and submission. Military uniforms also enhance the
perceived sexual attractiveness of the wearer through the use of
phallic signi ers, such as boots and weapons, and through the
design of the clothing, which frequently emphasizes the physical
body to a degree uncommon in ordinary mens-wear.
Magnus Hirshfeld, the pioneering gay sexologist, found that
among “soldier lovers,” there was great variation. Some like only
infantrymen; others, only cavalry o cers. A military tailor in Berlin
“whose establishment was a frequented resort of homosexuals, kept
a collection of all kinds of uniforms in his closets with which he was
able to transform any kind of Uhlan or infantryman into a sailor or
marine.”31 The sailor, especially, has become a recognized gay icon,
immortalized in paintings, ballets, and operas.
Uniformed authority gures, such as military and police o cers,
are still the focus of considerable sexual interest among both gay
and straight men. (There is some evidence that they may also appeal
sexually to gay and straight women.) Gay pornographic titles
include The Cop on 69th Street, Dominant Drill Sargeant, Leather Boot
Camp, Marine Master, and Soldiers of Sodom. Heterosexual
pornography also often features uniformed female gures. “Kinky
Fun and Uniforms with Sexy Model” promises one prostitute’s card.
“Bobbie—An Arresting Experience,” announces another with a
picture of a woman in police uniform.
 The uniform in fashion, Prada, 1994. (M. Chandoha Valentino)
Some sadomasochists argue that SM makes explicit the power
relationships that exist throughout society. Pornographic ction
often utilizes political themes and costumes to express
sadomasochistic fantasies. Paperback titles include Nazi Sex Slave,
Slave to the SS, Soviet Sex Slaves, Teen Sex Slaves of Saigon, and
Student Victims of Red Torture. In these, the uniforms of the “enemy”
function less as symbols of evil than of erotic power. Townsend’s
survey found that only 10 percent of the Masochists wanted a Nazi
uniform for themselves, but 60 percent of the Masochists wanted a
Nazi uniform to be worn by the Sadists.
The uniform itself can also be a fetish, even apart from an erotic
psychodrama. The famous gay illustrator Tom of Finland said that
“sometimes the attraction to the uniform is so powerful in me that I
feel as if I am making love to the clothes, and the man inside them
is just a... sort of animated display-rack.”32Hermann Broch
described the psychological appeal of the uniform in The
Sleepwalkers, a novel about a Prussian military o cer:
A uniform provides its wearer with a de nitive line of
demarcation between his person and the world.... [I]t is the
uniform’s true function to manifest and ordain order in the
world, to arrest the confusion and ux of life, just as it
conceals whatever in the human body is soft and owing,
covering up the soldier’s underclothes and skin.... Closed up
in his hard casing, braced in with straps and belts, he begins
to forget his own undergarments, and the uncertainty of
life.33
The appeal of this obviously extends beyond a minority of fetishists.
Every person in a business suit is wearing a uniform of power.
But not all uniforms are equal, and not all play an equally
important role in fashion. The study “The Nurse as a Sex Object in
Motion Pictures, 1930–1980” found that “seventy-three percent of
the nurse roles characterize nurses as sex objects.” In line with the
increasingly overt eroticism of recent decades, “the frequency and
intensity of this stereotype rose signi cantly during the 1960s and
1970s.” Moreover, the image of the nurse was divided into the
“sadistic nurse” stereotype and the “sexy playmate” stereotype.34
Pornographic paperbacks carry titles like Nurses’ Bedside Skills, Sex
with a Nurse, Virgin Student Nurse, and Wild and Kinky RN. Then
there are lms like Nasty Nurses and Naughty Nurses.
An analysis of the nurse’s unform provides clues about these
pervasive stereotypes. The history of nursing makes it clear that the
nurse’s uniform derives from that of the housemaid (cap and apron),
not the labcoat of the scientist or doctor. For many years, nursing
was a very low-paid, low-status female job. Whereas the doctor is
clearly an authority gure, the same cannot be said of the nurse.
The nurse costumes worn by fetishists are often made of rubber, a
material associated with degrading objects such as rubber sheets
and panties.
 The nurse as sex object, ca. 1940.
And yet the nurse has a certain power that gives her an erotic
charisma. She is o cially supposed to help the patient “get better,”
and in much ordinary pornography this translates directly into
therapeutic intercourse. Sadomasochistic and fetishist pornography,
however, emphasizes how she also in icts pain on the patient.
Moreover, the patient is in a dependent and passive position vis-a-
vis the nurse—on his back in bed—while she is erect and standing,
hypodermic needle or enema in hand. Fetish paperbacks have titles
like Nurse in Rubber. Nurse costumes have a strong appeal for many
fetishists (and many men in general), but their appeal for women
seems to be limited, and they have seldom appeared as fashion
inspiration. The masculine associations of other uniforms have made
them more attractive as fashion.
Where Cock Is King, Go for the Codpiece
In her 1985 essay “Sorrow and Silk Stockings,” lesbian Marcia Pally
interpreted both tough street styles and “androgynous” business
suits as imitation male: “Popular styles don’t lie midway between
masculinity and femininity, they fall—rush—toward butch. Where
cock is king, go for the codpiece. It’s not surprising that gay lib
produced a butch uniform, feminism a tailored one.”35
“Self-presentation is about power,” agrees fashion scholar
Elizabeth Wilson, and this has often meant that women’s fashions
have drawn on male prototypes. Contrary to popular belief, men’s
clothes (like trousers) are not necessarily functionally superior to
women’s clothes, but they are symbolically powerful. An
advertisement for business suits shows a woman standing at a
conference table with the caption: “How to Be Taken Seriously.” The
caption of another advertisement quotes Walt Whitman: “Resist
Much, OBEY LITTLE.” It shows a woman sitting on the back of a car,
wearing a black leather jacket and cowboy boots. Historically, men
have had both more physical power (as implied by the black leather
jacket) and greater socioeconomic power (as re ected in an
expensive suit).
Thus, business suits and cowboy boots alike are assertions of
masculine power—even, perhaps especially, when women wear
them. Whether a woman dresses young and tough like a biker, rich
and important like a capitalist, or in the high heels of a dominatrix
—in a sense, she masquerades as the Phallic Woman. It is not that
women want a penis, but that, like men, they want the power that
patriarchal society has attributed to the phallus and that is
symbolized by phallic clothing. But high heels and negligees may
also serve as the insignia of power.
“Women rule, OK?” says the young American designer Marc
Jacobs. “Women in control, in high heels!” Versace describes
modern women as “ruling . . . men with an iron hand.” This is not
literally true, of course, but it might have a certain psychic reality
for both men and women. The artist Allen Jones (creator of
controversial fetish images) insists that although feminists have
criticized eroticized pictures of phallic women in rubber and
leather, “these images come from the same system as power
dressing.”36 This idea provides an important clue regarding the
popularity of fetish fashions: They make women look powerful, very
powerful.
“Who’d want to be seen as a gorgeous, sexy, long-legged killer in
costumes cut up to here and down to there? Who’d collude in such a
disgraceful display of male chauvinism? Then again, who’d be so
lucky?” According to fashion journalist Sarah Mower, fashion in the
1990s is “fearlessly expressing the politically incorrect” idea that
women should use their “sexuality as an instrument of combat.”37
During the 1970s and 1980s, fashionable women tried to avoid
looking too feminine, because they associated femininity with
powerlessness and not being taken seriously. Even now, many
women argue about the “morality” of items like corsets and high
heels, on the grounds that they pander to (sexist) male fantasies. But
Mower insists:
I think we’re pandering to our own fantasies.... We don’t
want to be men. We don’t want to wear those suits... We are
women, therefore we want to wear womanly clothes . . . . It
doesn’t set women back, because we’re not saying that we
want to be like our mothers and grandmothers were in the
Fifties.... And it de nitely is having a laugh at men, because
they get helplessly turned on by it!38
It is not necessary to agree with Mower to recognize that her
viewpoint is widely shared. To the extent that fetish fashion is
popular with women, in large part this is because it adds the idea of
power to femininity.
Another word for power is freedom, since although power is
oppressive when wielded by others, it is something that most people
desire for themselves. The various sartorial strategies for conveying
power change constantly, however; after Versace presented the
Phallic Woman armored in black leather, he shifted gears and
presented the Veiled Woman in diaphanous chi on. The combat
boots of the early 1990s gave way by the middle of the decade to
stiletto heels.
What Vogue calls the “strong and sexy” look has become the
paradigm of contemporary fashion. This is a direct result of
women’s liberation. For although feminists such as Susan Faludi and
Naomi Wolf rage against fashion for holding women in a “beauty
trap,” in fact the history of fashion reveals a more complex picture.
In the past (and today in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran),
socially conservative males have made a point of controlling and
concealing women’s bodies. As women became more independent,
they adopted both men’s clothes and body-revealing clothes.
The issue of sexual power is problematic, however. “I don’t feel
that I have to be a man, look like a man to succeed,” argues English
fashion designer Katherine Hamnett. “I really hated that old-
fashioned idea that looking sexy was bad.”39Do “sexy” clothes
increase or undercut women’s power? If power is de ned as the
ability to do what you want (including the ability to command
another person), then the evidence cuts both ways. Some women
obviously have achieved what they wanted by sexually
manipulating other people, although other women have found that
their sexuality made them more vulnerable to the often greater
physical power of men. The notorious “mini-skirt rape case” in Fort
Lauderdale, Florida, involved a woman whose alleged assailant was
acquitted by a jury that interpreted the victim’s “provocative
clothes” as saying that she was “asking for it.”
Fashion obviously exists within a gendered world where men call
most of the shots. Yet the feminist critique of fashion has rested on
problematic assumptions about “natural” appearance, which is
contrasted with fashionable arti ce. The distinction between the
“natural” and the “arti cial” cannot be maintained, since all clothes
(and other aspects of appearance, such as hairstyles) are culturally
constructed. Blue jeans are not any more “natural” than high heels.
Moreover, it could be argued that there is no “real self” underneath
the arti ce of culture because human identity itself is culturally
constructed. In an in uential theoretical essay on fashion, Kaja
Silverman writes:
The male subject, like the female subject, has no visual
status apart from dress and/or adornment.... Clothing and
other kinds of ornamentation make the human body
culturally visible... clothing draws the body so that it can be
culturally seen, and articulates it as a meaningful form....
Even if my sympathies were not fully on the side of
extravagant sartorial display, I would feel impelled to stress
as strongly as possible that clothing is a necessary condition
of subjectivity—that in articulating the body, it
simultaneously articulates the psyche.40
The scholarly discourse on fashion has, in fact, increasingly
suggested that adornment is intrinsically human, frequently
pleasurable, and potentially subversive. The issue of “lesbian chic,”
for example, has pitted the orthodox feminist belief that fashion
sexually objecti es women and contributes to their subordination
against the modernist idea that dress provides an opportunity to
“play” with gender roles and conventions.
Pornography also has been reassessed by some feminists, who
observe that the alliance between antiporn feminists and the
fundamentalist right is based on the fantasy that there exists (or
should exist) only one kind of “natural” sexuality. Anticensorship
feminists have spoken out against this “policing of desire,” which
would forcibly suppress all “deviant” or “politically incorrect”
sexuality. Irving Klaw’s notorious bondage pornography of the
1950s, for example, was directed toward a male audience and
exploited many of the fetishistic icons that have been recently
incorporated into fashion. Yet fashion photographs in the Advocate
(shot by a woman for other women-identi ed women) include many
of the same garments and sex toys that Klaw used. Naomi Wolf,
author of The Beauty Trap, has admitted that a “butch” lesbian in
leather regalia does not seem “passive or victimized.”41 Yet Wolf
remains more or less hostile to the fashion industry, as such. I would
argue that her implicit distinction between “good” street fashion
and “bad” commercial fashion is as invalid as the distinction
between “good” erotica and “bad” pornography.
Many people believe that pornography causes perversion and
sexual violence. But this is like saying that country-and-western
music causes adultery and alchoholism.42 According to sex
researcher John Money, paraphilias like fetishism are disorders not
only of sex, but of love. Paraphiles have what Money calls a
“vandalized love map.” Although some were the victims of child
abuse, many others were victimized by well-meaning parents whose
militantly antisexual attitudes “warped” their sexual psychology:
“with monotonous regularity, paraphiles have a religious history of
relentlessly orthodox upbringings.” To salvage any sexual arousal,
they must enforce a radical split between lust and love. By lusting
after a shoe, for example, the fetishist “saves” the “pure” love object
from de lement. Ironically, notes Money, the current war on
pornography will probably lead to an even more “sex-negative
climate,” which will produce more hypophiliac (frigid) females and
paraphiliac males. To prevent paraphila, Money argues, society
must ensure “healthy love-map development in childhood.”43
Anorexia, bulimia, and obesity are also serious problems in
contemporary America, but they are not caused by fashion. Although
the neo-hippy fashions of the early 1990s brie y spawned the so-
called waif look among high-fashion models, the dominant trend for
the past twenty years has emphasized a mesomorphic body type for
both men and women. Hence the phrase “hard bodies.” It is
simplistic to characterize contemporary fashion as a “backlash”
against independent women.
Freud once suggested that “half of humanity must be classed
among the clothes fetishists. All women, that is, are clothes
fetishists.” He announced triumphantly, “Only now we understand
why even the most intelligent women behave defense-lessly against
the demands of fashion.” But this is naive. Until the eighteenth
century, men wore clothing that was at least as modish and sexually
provocative as women’s clothing; and even today, men’s clothing
follows fashion, albeit more slowly and discreetly than is the case
with women’s dress. If male fetishists repress the desire to look,
worshipping instead the clothes that prevent them from seeing,
women, Freud argued, repress the passive desire to be looked at:
“For [women], clothes take the place of parts of the body, and to
wear the same clothes [i.e., the latest fashions] means only to be
able to show what others can show.”44
 But this hypothesis is not supported by the evidence. Fashion has
never been simply about body parts, but about identity. (As our
sense of ourselves changes, so also do our clothes.) We have seen
how fetishism involves a symbolic system, and one, moreover, that
changes only very slowly. But in the world of fashion, cultural signs
have no xed meaning; they change continually. Indeed, one could
say that fashion is “the celebration of a perverse, fetishized passion
for the abstract code.”45 Perhaps, in that restricted sense, many
women might be clothing fetishists.
It is also possible that women’s “excessive” concern with beauty
and fashion could be “partly theorized in terms of the investment in
the fantasy of a common skin: the archaic sensory interface between
infant and mother.” Although this fantasy (emerging in infancy
through contact with the skin of the mother) would be common to
both males and females, it would necessarily nd di erent symbolic
expressions: “For the man, the fascination with female dress is
always tinged with envy,” whereas the woman (being the same sex
as the m/other) can “act out the fantasy of the primordially glorious
skin.”46
Raising Fetishism to New Heights of Fashion
In the recent collection Leatherfolk, Scott Tucker writes: “Words like
leatherfolk, fetishists, and sadomasochists don’t fully describe the
full spectrum of persons and eroticism I have in mind, but they
serve approximately.” He goes on to note with pleasure the way
radical sex groups were “raising fetishism to new heights of
fashion.”47
 Pride in fetish fashion is obviously predicated on an acceptance
of one’s personal involvement with fetishistic and sadomasochistic
sexuality. This position, in turn, re ects the cultural importance of
gay liberation, which, along with the women’s movement, is one of
the most culturally signi cant phenomena of the twentieth century.
Over the past decade, other sexual minorities (especially
sadomasochists and transvestites, but also fetishists and even
pedophiles) began to organize their own attempts to legitimate their
sexual practices, based on the prototype of the gay liberation
movement.
In works such as Marjorie Garber’s Vested Interests, transvestism
is interpreted as a force that disrupts or subverts conventional ideas
about sex and gender. But Annie Woodhouse’s Fantastic Women
questions just how transgressive cross-dressing really is, since it
tra cs so heavily in stereotypes. “Transvestites see gender as
something which is rigidly demarcated,” Woodhouse writes.
“Through cross-dressing the transvestite creates a synthetic woman,”
his “feminine self,” which “responds to the wishes and desires of his
masculine self.” The liberal belief that transvestism “might chip
away at patriarchal institutions and behavior” is “unrealistic.”48
The popular discourse on fashion, however, suggests that any
style that helps one escape from “the prison of gender” is implictly
“liberating.”49 Although cross-dressing has “always been a part of
the fetish scene” (embracing a wide range of sissy maids, drag
queens, and men trying to “pass” as women), the rise of “Fetish
Drag” is a new phenomenon. “Fetish drag does not require the look
to be ‘complete,’ “notes Tony Mitchell. Instead, it mixes “male”
elements like a black leather jacket and boots with “female”
elements like stockings and corsets. “And there is also the ambiguity
of SM orientation which the style allows.”50
The politicization of sexuality has led to disagreements between
sex radicals and feminists. As Ken Plummer points out,
the main debate is currently set up between the politics of
desire (the sexual libera-tionists) and the politics of sexism
(the gender liberationists). Both attack the traditional views
of sexuality.... But the former seek a proliferation of new
forms of sexualities, while the latter seek a reduction of
gender inequalities.... Both these positions claim to be
“progressive.”... But they are diametrically opposed—since
the former seeks to liberate a male model of desire while the
latter sees this as the very source of oppression... perversions
become a battle-ground for rede nition: as positive sexuality
or oppressive to women.51
There are also disagreements within the camp of the sex radicals.
Some approve of the convergence of fashion and fetishism, while
others have criticized what they regard as the “co-opting” of fetish
themes by fashion designers. You will recall, for example, how the
leather designer Randall complained that Versace had “wrecked”
the look.
Yet it is a false binary to suggest that fetish costumes are ipso
facto rebellious, “authentic,” and good, while fashions derived from
fetish costumes are conformist, consumerist, and bad. The
relationship between fashion and fetishism is not so simple.
Fetishism can be obsessive and repetitive, while fashion can o er
the possibilities of choice and change. In an essay in Skin Two,
designer Krystina Kitsis suggests that
the “real” fetishist is interested in... TRANSFORMATION: esh
becomes cool uid black rubber—simulated skin.... The
fashionable are seduced by the external gloss of fetishism
which is assimilated into the personal wardrobe of the
wearer. The fashionable are distinguished by the inscription
of glamour and style which converts the stereotype of
fetishism into personal identity.
For fetishists it is the STEREOTYPE itself which is the object
of fascination.52
As Kitsis says, “The fashionable are now dedicated to the notion of
di erence and choice.... Fetishism has both opened up this realm of
choice and is also bene tting [from it].”
The assimilation of fetishistic motifs into fashion obviously
entails the commercialization of fetishism, but does it also imply the
domestication (or de-radicalization) of fetishism? Jean-Paul Gaultier
has been quite candid about his lifelong interest in fetishistic
clothing. From the age of sixteen, he was constantly sketching feet
that curved so dramatically that they looked “almost broken.”53 But
he insists, “When I do things it’s not just my fantasy, it’s done to
re ect what I think people want.” Almost every style that he has
created for women, he also did for men, on the theory that clothes
expressed the fact that “there is a lot of sex in our lives,” and if
women can be seductive, so can men.54
Fetishists are also inspired by popular culture phenomena that
draw on fetish sources, making for a circular pattern of in uence.
The editors of the European sex magazine O: Fashion, Fetish,
Fantasies enthusiastically described Catwoman’s costume in the lm
Batman Returns, drawing connections with contemporary fashion:
“High Heels. Rubber Catsuit. Breast Harness. Face Mask...
[Catwoman’s] shiny black out t... makes fetish fashion
internationally known. Thus speeding up its triumphal march and
gaining general approval.”55 General approval may not be
immediately forthcoming, but fetish clubs witnessed a urry of
Catwoman costumes inspired by the lm. Yet fascinating as fetish
costumes are, in and of themselves, I would argue that it is even
more interesting to explore why fetishism has recently had such an
in uence on fashion and popular culture in general. It is time to look
closely again at fetish fashions to identify the sources of their
charisma.
The color symbolism associated with fetish fashion is particularly
signi cant. Black is overwhelmingly the most popular color, rivaled
only by red. Black is a uniquely powerful color—abstract, pure, and
mysterious. In African symbolism, black is associated with night and
nothingness. According to anthropologists, black and red are rare in
being natural symbols: Night, after all, is black, and blood is red. By
contrast, the symbolism associated with other colors tends to be
primarily conventional: There is nothing in nature that makes green
the color of jealousy or white the color of virginity.56

Biker chic, as modeled in Vogue, September 1991. (Copyright © Peter

Lindbergh)
Yet black also has a cultural history that in uences our responses
to it. Since the Middle Ages, black has been associated with evil:
Black robes be t our age. Once they were white;
Next many-hued; now dark as Afric’s Moor,
Night-black, infernal, traitorous, obscure,
Horrid with ignorance and sick with fright.
For very shame we shun all colors bright,
... our souls sunk in the night.
The concept of infernal, satanic black would prove perversely erotic.
Yet black carried other, antisexual meanings, connected with the
ascetic garb of the Catholic clergy and the sober conformity of the
Puritans.
 Black became the color of mourning, associated with widows as
well as nuns. Some people, therefore, found it depressing when
black began to dominate the clothing of the capitalist bourgeoisie.
“This black clothing that the men of our time wear is a terrible
symbol... of mourning,” wrote the nineteenth-century Romantic poet
Alfred de Musset. But a far greater poet, Charles Baudelaire, author
of The Flowers of Evil, found the black clothing of modern life not
only serious and severe, “a uniform livery of a iction,” but also
perversely beautiful.
“Scheherazade is easy, a little black dress is di cult,” argued
Coco Chanel, the rst true female dandy. And although the little
black dress soon became a bourgeois fashion cliché, it coexisted
with the image of the rebel’s black leather jacket and the bohemian
black of leotards, turtleneck sweaters, and dark glasses. Black was
cool, dangerous, and sexy. In the racially charged atmosphere of
American society, Norman Mailer even claimed that he wanted to
be black. The 1960s saw the rise of Black Power, pushing white boy
wannabees aside. Then in the 1970s, both gays and punks revived
the mystique of black leather, associated with SM and Hells Angels.
But it was in the 1980s that black had the greatest impact on avant-
garde fashion. All-black clothing was introduced by Japanese
designers like Rei Kawakubo, becoming the dominant antifashion
for artists and intellectuals. Although many fashion journalists found
the new Japanese styles sad and funereal, Suzy Menkes recognized
that there might be something “feminist” about “clothing that owes
nothing to outworn concepts of femininity.” Kawakubo’s models
looked like “a race of warrior women” in their sombre black dresses.
By the 1990s, black had become the quintessential color in
modern fashion. I think that black has come to dominate
contemporary fashion for some of the same reasons that it
dominates fetish fashion: Black is associated with night, death,
danger, nothingness, evil, perversion, rebellion, and sin. This is not
a matter of racism. The magazine Black Leather... In Color was
started by African-American leather enthusiasts.
For symbolic and visual power, black is rivaled only by red, the
color of blood, re, wine, and rubies. Indeed, Kawakubo once
cryptically remarked that “red is black.” Red is associated with the
Scarlet Woman and the ames of hell. In “Panty Raid,” the victim is
forced to wear an imported French gown: “The color was Vampire
Red!” Tightly belted, its buckle bore “a huge replica of Satan.” Red
is the color of passion, anger, danger, and revolution. But black is
also the color of revolution. The black ag of anarchy, like the black
of fascism, evokes the image of total destruction. The devil is the
prince of darkness, the dandy is the black prince of elegance.
The growing popularity of fetish fashions within the wider
culture is directly related to the charisma of deviance. Evil,
rebellion, danger, and pleasure exert a powerful emotional appeal.
In his disturbing and original book Seductions of Crime, the
sociologist Jack Katz argues that “all the provocatively sensual evils
of ‘the night’ “are powerfully charismatic. Sneaky thrills are
exciting. Looking tough, evil, alien, and “bad” has a broad appeal,
especially to young people. As a result, images of deviance,
“whorish styles... torn shirts and motorcycles,” permeate popular
culture because advertisers recognize that an “association with
deviance” helps sell products.57 If the fashion industry has
increasingly drawn on fetishist themes, this is one important reason
why.
“I do not see perversions only as disorders of a sexual nature
a ecting a relatively small number of people,” writes the French
psychoanalyst Janine Chasseguet-Smirgel, “though their role and
importance in the socio-cultural eld can never be over-estimated. I
see perversions more broadly, as a dimension of the human psyche
in general, a temptation in the mind common to us
all.”38Approaching the subject from a very di erent perspective,
literary theorist Kaja Silverman agrees that “perversion poses [a
challenge] to the symbolic order” because it is not only a matter of
sexuality, but also a turning away “from hierarchy and genital
sexuality” and even “from the paternal signi er, the ultimate ‘truth’
or ‘right.’ “Perversion is, therefore, “a radical challenge to sexual
di erence.”59
The “second-skin” materials of which fetish fashion is made are
also signi cant. The human skin is one of the most important
erogenous zones; it may also be conceptualized as a protective
envelope, marking the body boundaries: “Reliable data exist
indicating that stimulation of the skin can be reinforcing of the body
boundaries.”60 If fetishists like shiny, tight garments that tie or lace
closed, this may indicate a heightened concern about body
penetrability. Certainly, fetish materials dramatize the exterior
(boundary) aspects of the body. Fetish fashion draws attention to
the sexual aspects of the body, while simultaneously restricting
access to it.
The hardening and moistening of sexual arousal seem to be
implied by shiny rubberized surfaces. Whether or not the person
fashionably dressed in latex is actually anxious about sexuality or
bodily integrity (and in an age of AIDS, who is not anxious about
body invaders?), the very look of hard, wet impenetrability
implicitly signi es safe sex. Latex bodysuits and thigh-high boots
have become “the fashion insignia of cybersex,” says Mike Saenz,
the designer of a computer-generated comic book character, Donna
Matrix. Saenz ascribes the “groundswell of interest in fetishized
fashions” to the way they “function as a kind of pseudo-armor and,
in this age of AIDS, represent an attempt to romanticize and
eroticize the use of latex barriers.”61
An erotic fashion is not simply one that exposes the body or
exaggerates the secondary sexual characteristics. To be interpreted
as erotic, a fashion must be associated in some way with the sexual
marketplace—the arena in which sexual encounters take place.
Fashion trendsetters, I suspect, are drawn to the theatricality of
fetishistic eroticism, the implication that merely by wearing a
particular style one becomes the kind of person to whom sexual
adventures happen. We may be justi ed in describing the ubiquity
of fetish-inspired fashion in terms of “parasexuality” or the
“eroticism of demeanour.”62 Fetish fashion seems to talk about
sexuality in ways that pose important and potentially subversive
questions.
But why should fetishists be privileged as especially sexual
people? Freud’s idea that perversion is the opposite of neurosis now
seems mistaken; it might be more useful to characterize the
perversions as “erotic neuroses.” Although fetishists repress some of
their fears and con icts, they clearly eroticize others. But the appeal
of fetishism, and of “perverse” sexuality in general, rests on more
than a “mistake.”
Long pathologized and demonized, the “pervert” came in time to
be regarded as a “victim of circumstances” and then as someone in
rebellion against the social order. From being “culturally marginal,”
the “deviant” has been repositioned as an exemplar of “radical,
transgressive sexuality.” Today the status of the “sexual outlaw” is
widely admired. Among intellectuals, this paradigmn shift re ects in
part the in uence of Michel Foucault, but within the wider society it
is a direct result of the recent “explosion of unorthodox
sexualities.”63
We may be fascinated with fetishism, though, for reasons that
have little to do with the actuality of sexual “perversion” (which
most people know little about, anyway). Some psychiatrists have
expressed dismay about the popularity of fetishistic fashions. They
may be overreacting. Most people who wear black leather and fetish
gear are not “into” SM or fetishism. As one sadomasochist
complained,
 There’s a club in Chicago... I’ve seen women there—
generally young, in their early 20s—who will wear a chain
or a very hot, kinky out t. I’ll [ask], “Is this an expression of
one of your fantasies or desires?” And they’ll say, “What?”
I’ll say, “What you’re wearing is a personi cation of
something that’s special to a lot of people, and I was
wondering if you are interested in that?” And [they’ll say],
“What?” All they’re doing is making fashion statements.64
Why is “sexual chic” so popular now? In her analysis of
“perversion as fashion,” the poet Diane Ackerman presents two of
the most commonly accepted reasons. First, because of “our
meandering return to Victorian morals”: “When societies try to sti e
sexuality, they often produce a yen for acting out.” Second, because
of AIDS: “In these plague years, when we cannot be promiscuous
without worry, voyeurism has hit an all-time high.” There is also a
third explanation, popular with conservatives, which argues that
perversion ourishes because society has become increasingly
sexually permissive. Indeed, Ackerman admits, a la Allan Bloom,
that popular culture is saturated with sexual imagery: “Rock stars
perform fellatio on the microphone.”65 I do not think that these
explanations su ce. Our society is both sexually repressed and
hedonistic. People are still having sex, not just dressing up. I think
the answer is more... perverse.
Whatever is forbidden is eroticized. Back in the 1960s, the
philosopher Herbert Marcuse suggested that “the perversions seem
to give a promesse de bonheur greater than that of normal sexuality”
because they express “rebellion against the subjugation of sexuality
under the order of procreation and against the institutions which
guarantee this order.” And Freud himself observed that “it is as if
they exerted a seductive in uence; as if at bottom a secret envy of
those who enjoy them had to be strangled.”66 It is not only that the
perversions stand for pleasure, as opposed to procreation, but that
they are also an implicit critique of the sexuality of the parents: “a
temptation in the mind common to us all.”67

Bulle Ogier plays a dominatrix in Barbet Schwedens lm Maîtresse.

Costumes by Karl Lagerfeld. (Films du Losange)
 Fetish dress, London. (Copyright © Grace Lau)
We may protest that “the pervert is always someone else!” but
our fantasies betray our hypocrisy. “What is a ‘normal’ erotic
fantasy?” Fantasy, or imagination, is inevitably about the forbidden
and the impossible.68 The late Fred Davis wrote eloquently about
how cultural ambivalence profoundly a ects fashion, which
ambiguously expresses a tension between oppositions, such as
“youth versus age, masculinity versus femininity... and conformity
versus rebellion.”69Perhaps we are now seeing played out in fashion
our ambivalence about what seems to be a disappearing boundary
between the “normal” and the “perverse.”
 Notes
Introduction
1. Cynthia Rose, “Skin Deep,” Guardian Weekend, March 5, 1994,
p. 29.
2. Ibid.
3. Jean Baudrillard, For a Critique of the Political Economy of the
Sign (St. Louis: Telos Press, 1981), p. 91.
4. Reverend P. Baudin, Fetichism and Fetich Worshippers (New
York: Benziger Brothers, 1885), pp. 5, 109.
5. Karl Marx, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, trans.
Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling, ed. Friedrich Engels (New York:
Modern Library, 1906), p. 85.
6. Linda Williams, Hard Core: Power, Pleasure, and the “Frenzy of
the Visible” (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), p. 6.
7. Anne McClintock, quoted in Feminists for Free Expression
Newsletter 2 (1994): 2.
8. See Emily Apter and William Pietz, eds., Fetishism as Cultural
Discourse (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1993), cover.
9. Andrea Raab, “Fetishes,” Self April 1992, p. 94.
10. Susan Crain Bakos, “Sexual Obsessions,” Ladies’ Home
Journal, April 1993, p. 113.
11. Louis Nizer, My Life in Court (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday,
1961), pp. 199–200, 203–204.
12. Karen Freifeld, “What a Heel! Sole Suspect Nabbed in Maria
Shoe Thefts,” New York Newsday, July 17, 1992, p. 3.
 13. David Kocieniewski, “That’s Shoe Biz. Sole Searching,” New
York Newsday, July 27, 1993, p. 5.
14. Edward Klein, “Trump Family Values,” Vanity Fair, March
1994, p. 158.
15. “Jury Convicts Publicist of Footwear Theft,” New York Times,
February 17, 1994, p. B2.
16. “Diary of a High Heel Model,” High Heels, January 1962, p.
17.
Chapter 1
1. Richard von Kra t-Ebing, Psychopathia Sexualis with Especial
Reference to the Antipathic Sexual Instinct: A Medico-Forensic Study,
trans. F.J. Rebman (1886; New York: Physicians and Surgeons Book
Company, 1906, 1934), p. 218. This edition uses the obsolete
spelling fetichism, which I have altered to fetishism.
2. Emile Laurent, Les Perversions sexuelles: Fétichistes et érotomanes
(Paris: Vigot, 1905), quoted in Yves Edel, preface to Gaétan Gatian
de Clérambault, Passion erotique des éto es chez la femme (1908;
Paris: Empêcheurs de Penser en Rond, 1991), p. 11.
3. Alfred Binet, “Le Fétichisme dans l’amour: Etude de
psychologie morbide,” Revue philosophique 24 (1887), quoted in
Edel, preface to Clérambault, Passion erotique, p. 11.
4. Kra t-Ebing, Psychopathia Sexualism, p. 224.
5. Georges Canguilhem, The Normal and the Pathological (New
York: Zone Books, 1991), p. 37.
6. Paul H. Gebhardt, “Fetishism and Sadomasochism,” as
described by Lorraine Gam-man and Merja Makinen, Female
Fetishism: A New Look (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1994), p. 38.
7. Robert Stoller, Observing the Erotic Imagination (New Haven,
Conn.: Yale University Press, 1985), p. 35.
8. Chris Gosselin and Glenn Wilson, Sexual Variations: Fetishism,
Sadomasochism, and Transvestism (London: Faber and Faber, 1980),
p. 43.
9. Attorney General of the United States, Final Report of the
Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography (Nashville: Rutledge
Hill Press, 1986), pp. 343–344.
10. Mark Elliott Dietz and Barbara Evans, “Pornographic
Imagery and Prevalence of Paraphilia,” American Journal of
Psychiatry 139 (1982): 1495. Dietz and Evans nd that less than 2
percent of the pornography they surveyed dealt with leather
garments, rubber garments, and exaggerated shoes and boots. Other
sources indicate somewhat higher gures of between 3 and 5
percent.
11. Attorney General, Final Report of the Attorney Genera’s
Commission on Pornography, p. 427. Titles of magazines, books, and
lms are listed on pp. 387–424.
12. Stoller, Observing the Erotic Imagination, pp. 11–12.
13. Robert Stoller, Presentations of Gender (New Haven, Conn.:
Yale University Press, 1985), p. 135.
14. Louise Kaplan, “Women Masquerading as Women,” in
Perversions and Near Perversions in Clinical Practice: New
Psycholanalytic Perspectives, ed. Gerald I. Fogel and Wayne A. Myers
(New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1991), p. 129.
 15. Ibid., p. 130.
16. Sigmund Freud, “Fetishism,” in The Standard Edition of the
Complete Psychological Works (London: Hogarth Press and The
Institute for Psychoanalysis, 1953–1975), vol. 21, p. 129.
17. Ted Polhemus, Body Styles (Luton: Leonard Books, 1988), p.
100.
18. Louise Kaplan, Female Perversions: The Temptations of Emma
Bovary (New York: Doubleday, 1991), p. 54.
19. Ibid., p. 154.
20. Freud, “Fetishism,” p. 154.
21. Kaplan, Female Perversions, p. 54.
22. Ibid., pp. 21–22.
23. Quoted, pace Freud, in “Bits and Bobbitts,” Economist,
January 15–21, 1994, p. 28.
24. Eugénie Lemoine-Luccioni, La Robe: Essai psychoanalytique
sur le vêtement (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1983), p. 34.
25. Robert Bak, “The Phallic Woman: The Ubiquitous Fantasy in
Perversions,” Psychoanalytic Study of the Child 23 (1968): 16.
26. Janine Chasseguet-Smirgel, Creativity and Perversion (New
York: Norton, 1985), p. 80.
27. Ibid., pp. 85–86.
28. Assuming that castration anxiety is a factor in the genesis of
fetishism, we still do not know why some males react to castration
anxiety by becoming fetishists, and others do not. But pre-Oedipal
causes for fetishism involving infantile anxiety about separation and
even bodily integrity are implicated.
 29. Phyllis Greenacre, “Certain Relationships Between Fetishism
and Faulty Development of the Body Image,” Psychoanalytic Study of
the Child 8 (1953): 93, quoted in Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death
(New York: Free Press, 1973), p. 228. See also Greenacre’s
“Perversions: General Considerations Regarding Their Genetic and
Dynamic Background,” Psychoanalytic Study of the Child 23 (1968):
47–62.
30. Stoller, Presentations of Gender, pp. 93–136.
31. Ibid., pp. 130–131.
32. Chasseguet-Smirgel, Creativity and Perversion, p. 81.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid., p. 87.
35. Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, vol. 1, An
Introduction, trans. Robert Hurley (New York: Random House,
1978), pp. 78, 111, 153–154.
36. Domna Stanton, “Introduction: The Subject of Sexuality,” in
Discourses of Sexuality: From Aristotle to AIDS, ed. Domna Stanton
(Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992), p. 40. See also
Robert A. Padgug, “Sexual Matters: On Conceptualizing Sexuality in
History,” Radical History Review 20 (1979): 3–24.
37. Lynn Hunt, ed., The Invention of Pornography: Obscenity and
the Origins of Modernity, 1500–1800 (New York: Zone Books, 1993)
pp. 10, 16.
38. Alex Comfort, “Deviation and Variation,” in Variant Sexuality:
Research and Theory, ed. Glenn Wilson (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1987), p. 2.
 39. Gilbert Herdt and Robert J. Stoller, Intimate Communications:
Erotics and the Study of Culture (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1990), pp. 126–127.
40. Colin Wilson, The Mis ts: A Study of Sexual Outsider’s (New
York: Carroll & Graf, 1988), pp. 8, 75.
41. Matt Ridley, The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human
Nature (New York: Macmillan, 1993); David M. Buss, The Evolution
of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating (New York: Basic Books, 1994).
42. Glenn Wilson, The Great Sex Divide: A Study of Male-Female
Di erences (London: Peter Owen, 1989), p. 86.
43. Ibid., pp. 8–11.
44. Ronald A. La Torre, “Devaluation of the Human Love Object:
Heterosexual Rejection as a Possible Antecedent to Fetishism,”
Journal of Abnormal Psychology 89 (1980): 1295–1298.
45. Arthur Epstein, “The Relationship of Altered Brain States to
Sexual Psychopathology,” in Contemporary Sexual Behavior: Critical
lssues in the 1970s, ed. Joseph Zubin and John Money (Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973), pp. 300–301. See also W.
Mitchell, M. A. Falconer, and D. Hill, “Epilepsy with Fetishism
Relieved by Temporal Lobectomy,” Lancet 2 (1954): 626–630.
46. Epstein, “Relationship of Altered Brain States to Sexual
Psychopathology,” p. 302.
47. Robert Stoller, “Psychoanalysis and Physical Intervention in
the Brain: The Mind-Body Problem Again,” in Contemporary Sexual
Behavior, ed. Zubin and Money, p. 341.
48. See Wilson, ed., Variant Sexuality.
 49. Chris Gosselin, “Why Me?” (1984), in Skin Two Retro 1
(London: Tim Woodward, 1991), p. 24.
50. Gosselin and Wilson, Sexual Variations, pp. 153–154.
51. American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. rev. (Washington, D.C.:
American Psychiatric Association, 1994), p. 526 [hereafter cited as
DSM],
52. Paul H. Gebhard, “Fetishism and Sadomasochism,” in Sex
Research: Studies from The Kinsey Institute, ed. Martin Weinberg (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1976), p. 159.
53. A clinical study of fetish preferences of forty-eight fetishists
who had been in psychiatric hospitals indicated that clothes were
most popular (58%), followed by rubber (23%), parts of the body
(15%), footwear (also 15%), leather (10%), soft materials like silk
(6%), and clothes of soft material (8%). See A. J. Chalkley and E. E.
Powell, “The Clinical Description of Forty-eight Cases of Sexual
Fetishism,” British Journal of Psychiatry 142 (1983): 292–295,
quoted in William B. Arndt, Gender Disorders and the Paraphilias
(Madison, Conn.: International Universities Press, 1991), p. 183.
54. David Kunzle, Fashion and Fetishism (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman
and Little eld, 1982), p. 14.
55. DSM-3(1987), p. 283; DSM-4 (1994), p. 26.
56. Kunzle, Fashion and Fetishism, p. xx.
57. Joyce McDougall, Plea for a Measure of Abnormality (New
York: Brunner/Mazel, 1992), p. 59.
 58. Pat Califa, “Beyond Leather: Expanding the Realm of the
Senses to Rubber,” from “Dominas: Women with Attitude,” Skin
Two, no. 11 (n.d. [1993]): 28.
59. Ibid.
60. Freud, “Fetishism,” p. 152.
61. According to Samuel S. Janus and Cynthia L. Janus,
“Twenty-two percent of the men surveyed and 18% of the women
were generally approving... of fetishes.” That is, they thought that
fetishes were either “very normal” (5%) or “all right.” “Eleven
percent of the men and 6% of the women reported having had
experience with fetishes” {The Janus Report on Sexual Behavior[New
York: Wiley, 1993], p. 122).
62. Comfort, “Deviation and Variation,” p. 1.
63. Glenn Wilson, The Secrets of Sexual Fantasy (London: Dent,
1978), pp. 100–101.
64. Robert H. Morneau and Robert R. Rockwell, Sex, Motivation,
and the Criminal O ender (Spring eld, 111.: Thomas, 1980), p. 317.
65. Arndt, Gender Disorders and the Paraphilias, pp. 201–202.
66. Glenn Wilson, Preface to Variant Sexuality, ed. Wilson.
67. Sigmund Freud, Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, in
Standard Edition, vol. 7, p. 153.
68. Ibid., p. 147
69. Joyce McDougall, Theatres of the Mind: Illusion and Truth on
the Psychoanalytic Stage (New York: Basic Books, 1985), p. 252.
70. Joyce McDougall, “Perversions and Deviations in the
Psychoanalytic Attitude: Their E ects on Theory and Practice,” in
Perversions and Near-Perversions in Clinical Practice, ed. Vogel and
Myers, pp. 178–179, 183–184, 188.
71. George Stade, “The Hard-Boiled Dick: Perverse Re ections in
a Private Eye,” in Perversions and Near-Perversions in Clinical Practice,
ed. Vogel and Myers, pp. 232–233.
Chapter 2
1. Xavier Moreau, quoted in Georgina Howell, “Chain
Reactions,” Vogue, September 1992, p. 532.
2. Shari Benstock and Suzanne Ferris, eds., On Fashion (New
Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1994), p. 5.
3. David O. Friedrichs, “The Body Taboo,” Sexual Behavior 2
(1972): 64.
4. High Heels 2 (1965): 27.
5. “Letters from Our Readers,” Bizarre Life (n.d. [ca. 1966]),
Vertical File, Kinsey Institute.
6. Erolastica 1 (1975): 6.
7. Throttle: The Book for Leather Lovers (n.p., n.d.), Human
Sexuality Collection, Cornell University Library.
8. Krystina Kitsis, “Bound by Our Image,” O: Fashion, Fetish,
Fantasies, no. 23 (1994): 33.
9. Dick Hebdidge, Subculture: The Meaning of Style (1979;
London: Roudedge, 1993), pp. 107–108. [Emphasis added]
10. Caroline Evans and Minna Thornton, Women and Fashion: A
New Look (London: Quartet Books, 1989), p. 21.
11. John Savage, England’s Dreaming (New York: St. Martin’s
Press, 1992), pp. 64, 68.
 12. Quoted in Evans and Thornton, Women and Fashion, p. 23.
13. Vivienne Westwood to author, September 19, 1994.
14. “Malcolm McClaren,” 0: Fashion, Fetish, Fantasies, no. 23
(1994): 36–38.
15. Michael Selzer, Terrorist Chic: An Exploration of Violence in the
Seventies (New York: Hawthorn Books, 1979).
16. Edmund White, “Fantasia on the Seventies,” in Edmund
White, The Burning Library, ed. David Bergman (New York: Knopf,
1994), p. 39.
17. Barbara Rose, “The Beautiful and the Damned,” Vogue,
November 1978, p. 326.
18. Howell, “Chain Reactions,” p. 532.
19. Valerie Steele, “Erotic Allure,” in The Idealizing Vision: The
Art of Fashion Photography, ed. Andrew Wilkes (New York: Aperture,
1991), pp. 81–97.
20. Roger Madison, “Dig Black Stockings and Boots?” Sexology
41 (1975): 25–26.
21. Hugh Jones, The Sexual Fetish in Today’s Society (North
Hollywood, Calif.: Brandon House, 1965), pp. 17–18.
22. John Gagnon, Human Sexualities (Glenview, 111.: Scott,
Foresman, 1977), pp. 332–333.
23. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, June 1974, pp. 201–202.
24. Albert Ellis, Sex and the Liberated Man (Secaucus, N.J.: Lyle
Stewart, 1976), pp. 77–78, 143.
25. Ibid., p. 144.
 26. Kathy Myers, “Fashion ‘n’ Passion: A Working Paper,” in Zoot
Suits and Second-Hand Dresses: An Anthology of Fashion and Music, ed.
Angela McRobbie (Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1988), pp. 189–198.
27. Rosetta Brooks, “Fashion: Double Page Spread,” Camerawork,
January-February 1980, p. 2.
28. Colin McDowell, Dressed to Kill: Sex, Power & Clothes
(London: Hutchinson, 1992), p. 168.
29. Quoted in ibid., p. 178.
30. Sarah Mower, “Fashion Intelligence: Of Human Bondage,”
[British] Vogue, February 1991, p. 15.
31. Tony Mitchell, “Scene & Heard: Cheek to Chic,” Skin Two,
no. 9 (1989): 18.
32. Quoted in Shane Watson, “The New Glamour,” [British] Elle,
August 1994, p. 94.
33. Naomi Schor, “Female Fetishism: The Case of George Sand,”
in The Female Body in Western Culture: Contemporary Perspectives, ed.
Susan Rubin Suleiman (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1986), p. 371.
34. But see Janine Chasseguet-Smirgel, “Freud and Female
Sexuality: The Consideration of Some Blind Spots in the Exploration
of the ‘Dark Continent,’ “in Sexuality and Mind: The Role of the Father
and the Mother in the Psyche (New York: New York University Press,
1986), pp. 89–90.
35. Tina Papoulias, “Fetishism,” in The Sexual Imagination from
Acker to Zola: A Feminist Companion, ed. Harriet Gilbert (London:
Cape, 1993), pp. 89–90.
 36. Juliet Hopkins, “The Probable Role of Trauma in a Case of
Foot and Shoe Fetishism: Aspects of Psychotherapy of a Six-year-old
Girl,” International Review of Psychoanalysis 11 (1984): 79–91, cited
in Gregorio Kohon, “Fetishism Revisited,” International Journal of
Psycho-Analysis 68 (1987): 219.
37. Lorraine Gamman and Merja Makinen, Female Fetishism: A
New Look (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1994), pp. 96–102.
38. Robert Stoller, Observing the Erotic Imagination (New Haven,
Conn.: Yale University Press, 1985), p. 137.
39. Ibid., p. 142.
40. Michael Mason, The Making of Victorian Sexuality: Sexual
Behavior and Its Understanding (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), pp.
43, 44.
41. Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, vol. 1, An
Introduction, trans. Robert Hurley (New York: Random House,
1978), pp. 12–13.
42. Alain Corbin, Women for Hire: Prostitution and Sexuality in
France After 1850, trans. Alan Sheridan (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1990), pp. 125–126
43. Ibid., pp. 124–127.
44. Richard von Kra t-Ebing, Psychopathia Sexualis with Especial
Reference to the Antipathic Sexual Instinct: A Medico-Forensic Study,
trans. F. J. Rebman (1886; New York: Physicians and Surgeons Book
Company, 1906, 1934), p. 249.
45. Corbin, Women for Hire, pp. 201, 212.
 46. Ken Plummer, “Sexual Diversity: A Sociological Perspective,”
in The Psychology of Sexual Diversity, ed. Kevin Howells (Oxford:
Blackwell, 1984), p. 227.
47. Havelock Ellis, Studies in the Psychology of Sex (New York:
Random House, 1936), vol. 2, pp. 1,3.
48. Quoted in “The Forbidden Books of Youth,” New York Times
Book Review, June 6, 1993, p. 28. In the 1950s, fetishist members of
the Biz-zare Club also said that they enjoyed reading Kra t-Ebing’s
case histories.
49. Walter Benjamin, Charles Baudelaire: A Lyric Poet in the Era of
High Capitalism, trans. Harry Zohn (London: New Left Books, 1973),
p. 166.
50. As the German economist Werner Sombart wrote many years
ago. See Valerie Steele, Fashion and Eroticism: Ideals of Feminine
Beauty from the Victorian Era to the Jazz Age (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1985), p. 18.
51. Gamman and Makinen, Female Fetishism, pp. 28–37, 182–
183.
52. Ibid., pp. 37, 205.
53. London Life [special correspondence supplement], July 29,
1933, p. 68.
54. Madame Kayne, The Corset in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth
Centuries (Brighton: Green elds, n.d. [ca. 1932]). The book contains
advertisements in the back.
55. Cosmopolite, “The Fascination of the Fetish,” Photo Bits, May
13, 1911, pp. 8–9.
 56. Biz-zarre Club, n. p.
57. Ted Polhemus and Lynn Proctor, “Fetish Fashion,” in Fashion
1985, ed. Emily White (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1984), pp.
115–126.
58. Ted Polhemus, Street Style: From Sidewalk to Catwalk
(London: Thames and Hudson, 1994), pp. 103–105.
59. James Laver, Modesty in Dress (Boston: Houghton Mi in,
1969), p. 119.
Chapter 3
1. Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison,
trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: Vintage Books, 1979), pp. 138, 25.
2. Valerie Steele, Fashion and Eroticism: Ideals of Feminine Beauty
from the Victorian Era to the Jazz Age (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1985), chap. 9.
3. “Surfacing,” New York Times, August 21, 1994, p. 53.
4. “Waist Case,” Vogue, September 1994, p. 244.
5. London Life League Newsletter, no. 3 (1984): 1.
6. Rigid corsets with whalebone stays rst appeared in sixteenth-
century Europe. The iron “corsets” of the same period were not the
fashion, but were crude orthopedic instruments intended to correct
spinal deformations. Erotic enthusiasm began to focus on the corset
in the eighteenth century, and spread rapidly in the later nineteenth
century—the same pattern we see with shoe fetishism.
7. Susan Faludi, Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American
Women (New York: Crown, 1991), p. 189.
8. Ibid., p. 173.
 9. Ibid., pp. 496, 499.
10. MORALIST, in Englishwoman’s Domestic Magazine, February
1871, p. 127 [hereafter cited as EDM].
11. Fakir Musafar, quoted in Modern Primitives, ed. V. Vale and
Andrea Juno (San Francisco: Re/Search 1989), pp. 29–30.
12. Hyygeia, “Does Tight-Lacing Really Exist?” Family Doctor,
September 3, 1887, p. 7.
13. “Tight-Lacing,” Family Doctor, March 3, 1888, p. 1.
14. Measurements of corsets in other museum collections
indicate that the majority were 20 to 26 inches when laced
completely closed—and many women left their corsets open in back
two or three inches. For a further analysis of corset and dress
measurements, see Steele, Fashion and Eroticism, chap. 9.
15. Mistress Angel Stern, “A ‘Corset Moment’ with Pearl,” Verbal
Abuse, no. 3 (1994): 7.
16. Musafar, quoted in Modern Primitives, ed. Vale and Juno, pp.
15, 8.
17. Fakir Musafar, quoted in Gloria Brame, William Brame, and
Jon Jacobs, Di erent Loving: An Exploration of the World of Sexual
Dominance and Submission (New York: Villard Books, 1994), p. 311.
18. Stephanie Jones, “Strictly Fashionable: A Straight-Laced Look
at Corsetry,” Skin Two, no. 9 (1989): 45–47.
19. Ibid.
20. Quoted in Brame et al., Di erent Loving, p. 319.
21. Fakir Musafar, “The Corset and Sadomasochism,”
Sandmutopia Guardian: A Dungeon Journal, no. 11 (n.d.): 14–16.
 22. See, for example, LA GENIE, in EDM, September 1868, p. 166.
There is further discussion of this issue in Steele, Fashion and
Eroticism.
23. ALFRED, in EDM, January 1871, p. 62.
24. Modern Society, December 25, 1909, p. 22.
25. Richard von Kra t-Ebing, Psychopathia Sexualis with Especial
Reference to the Antipathic Sexual Instinct: A Medico-Forensic Study,
trans. F. J. Rebman (1886; New York: Physicians and Surgeons Book
Company, 1906, 1934), p. 253.
26. William Stekel, Sexual Aberrations: The Phenomenon of
Fetishism in Relation to Sex (New York: Liveright, 1930), vol. 1, pp.
222–224.
27. Ibid., pp. 218–220.
28. NORA, in EDM, May 1867, p. 279.
29. FANNY, in Queen, July 25, 1863, reprinted in W. B. L.
[William Barry Lord], The Corset and the Crinoline (London: Ward,
Lock and Tyler, n.d. [ca. 1868]), pp. 157–158.
30. A LADY FROM EDINBURGH, in EDM, March 1867, reprinted in W.
B. L., Corset and the Crinoline, p. 172; STAYLACE, in EDM, June 1867,
p. 224, reprinted in W. B. L., Corset and the Crinoline, pp. 173–174.
31. WASP WAIST, in Society, 23 September 1899, p. 1871.
32. AN ENGLISH SCHOOLGIRL, in Family Doctor, September 27, 1890,
p. 73.
33. See, for example, SATIN SKIN, in Society, March 24, 1900, p.
183; and MARTYR, in Society, April 21, 1900, p. 263.
34. A TRAVELLER, in Family Doctor, December 10, 1887, p. 235.
 35. L. Mears, “The Vogue of the Wasp-Waist,” London Life, April
26, 1930, p. 29.
36. Brigitte Hamann, The Reluctant Empress: A Biography of
Empress Elizabeth of Austria (New York: Knopf, 1986), p. 127.
37. F. B., in Society, April 21, 1900, p. 263.
38. Society, December 16, 1899, p. 2109.
39. Photo Bits, February 5, 1910, p. 2.
40. Private collection.
41. Rick Cohen, “Female Like Me,” New York Observer, July 19-
July 26, 1993, p. 13.
42. A WOMAN OF FIFTY, “The Cult of Beauty in a Girl’s School Forty
Years Ago,” Society, October 7, 1899, p. 1911.
43. WALTER, in EDM, November 1867, p. 613.
44. Alison Carter, Underwear: The Fashion History (New York:
Drama Books, 1992), p. 36.
45. WALTER, in Modem Society, December 4, 1909, p. 23.
46. LA GENIE, in EDM, September 1868, pp. 166–167.
47. A DUBLIN BOY, in EDM, July 1868, p. 33.
48. ANTI-CORPULENCE, in EDM, March 1870, p. 192.
49. A STAIDMAN, in EDM, January 1871, p. 63.
50. MARY BROWN, in Family Doctor, June 5, 1886, p. 211.
51. Family Doctor, October 20, 1888, p. 121.
52. BROUGHT UP AS A GIRL, in Family Doctor, June 23, 1888, p. 265;
A WOULD BE LADY in Family Doctor, December 8, 1888, p. 230.
According to psychiatrist Robert Stoller, there are authenticated
modern cases of transvestites who, as boys, were put into girls’
clothes by female relatives who hated males. This is also, however, a
popular fantasy among transvestites.
53. SATIN STAYS, in Society, August 18, 1894, pp. 663–664.
54. RETIRED COLONEL, in Modern Society, November 20, 1909, p.
11.
55. REFORMER, in Family Doctor, December 21, 1889, p. 267.
56. BROUGHT UP AS A GIRL, in Family Doctor, June 23, 1888, p. 265.
57. A KENSINGTON BELLE, in Modem Society, July 27, 1889, p. 920.
58. DORA WELBY, “Slaves of the Stay-Lace,” Modem Society,
November 20, 1909, p. 22.
59. SMALL WAIST, in Modern Society, December 4, 1909, p. 24.
60. “Recollections of a Corsetiere,” London Life, December 27,
1930, pt. 2, p. 24.
61. Olden Outlake, The Gentle Art of Nerve Wrecking: Discipline in
an Austrian Gymna-sium of 1930, Autobiographically Assessed from an
American Vantage Point (New York: Olden Outlake, 1961), pp. 50–
51.
62. London Life League, “Corsetry Education Notes,” no. 4 (n.d.).
63. THE VANISHING WAIST? in Photo Bits, October 29, 1910.
64. Photo Bits, January 22, 1910; May 14, 1910.
65. “The Vogue of the Wasp-Waist,” London Life, April 26, 1930,
p. 29.
66. Society, May 26, 1900, p. 362.
67. A WORSHIPPER OF WASP-WAISTS, in London Life, February 25,
1933, p. 58.
68. “Polaire and Others,” London Life, June 26, 1937, p. 67.
 69. William A. Granger, An Exclusive Production: A Guinness
Record World Smallest Waist. The Biography of Mrs. Ethel Granger. By
Her Husband (n. p., n. d.).
70. Alex Comfort, “Deviation and Variation,” in Variant Sexuality:
Research and Theory, ed. Glenn Wilson (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1987), p. 4.
71. David Kunzle, Fashion and Fetishism (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman
and Little eld, 1982), p. 338.
72. Musafar, quoted in Modern Primitives, ed. Vale and Juno, pp.
30–31.
73. Ibid., pp. 30–32.
74. Pearl, interview with author, August 1993.
75. Cathie J., interviews with author, June and September 1994.
Unless otherwise noted, all quotations from Cathie come from these
interviews.
76. Brame et al., Di erent Loving, pp. 311, 319.
77. Lauren, interview with author, December 1994.
78. Marion Hume, “Portrait of a Former Punk,” Vogue,
September 1994, p. 190.
79. Vivienne Westwood to author, September 19, 1994.
80. Michelle Olley, “Jean-Paul Gaultier: Rascal of Radical Chic,”
in The Best of SkinTwo, ed. Tim Woodward (London: Kasak Books,
1993), p. 70.
81. Quoted in “Waist Case,” Vogue, September 1994, p. 244.
82. New York Times, August 28, 1994, p. 31.
Chapter 4
 1. John K. Fairbank, The Great Chinese Revolution, 1800–1985
(New York: Harper & Row, Perennial, 1987), pp. 68–73.
2. Quoted in Samuel S. Janus and Cynthia L. Janus, The Janus
Report on Sexual Behavior (New York: Wiley, 1993), pp. 123–124.
3. Dorothy Ko, “Talking About Footbinding: Discourses of
Manhood and Nationhood in Late Imperial China” (Paper delivered
at panel “The Mindful-Body: Footbinding,” at the Forty-sixth Annual
Meeting of the Association for Asian Studies, March 26, 1994).
4. Feng Jicai, The Three-Inch Golden Lotus: A Novel on Foot
Binding, trans. David Wake eld (Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press, 1994), p. 236.
5. William A. Rossi, The Sex Life of the Foot and Shoe (Ware:
Wordsworth, 1977), p. 33.
6. Stephen Kern, Anatomy and Destiny: A Cultural History of the
Human Body (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1975), p. 2.
7. Philippe Perrot, Fashioning the Bourgeoisie: A History of Clothing
in the Nineteenth Century, trans. Richard Bienvenu (Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press, 1994), p. 11.
8. Robert Buchanan, The Fleshly School of Poetry (1872), quoted
in Kern, Anatomy and Destiny, p. 82.
9. David Coward, “The Sublimations of a Fetishist: Restif de La
Bretonne (1734–1806),” Eighteenth-Century Life, May 1985, p. 100.
10. Ann Magnuson, “Hell on Heds,” Allure, September 1994, pp.
128, 131.
11. Rossi, Sex Life of the Foot and Shoe, p. 149.
 12. Ann Hollander, quoted in William Grimes, “The Chanel
Platform,” New York Times, May 17, 1992, p. 8.
13. Ken Baynes and Kate Baynes, eds., The Shoe Show: British
Shoes Since 1790 (London: Crafts Council, 1979), p. 46.
14. HARMONIE, in EDM, June 1, 1869, p. 327.
15. ROBIN ADAIR, in EDM, September 1, 1870, p. 190.
16. HIGH HEELS and FRED, in EDM, September 1, 1869, p. 167.
17. ROBIN ADAIR, in EDM, December 1, 1870, p. 377.
18. WALTER, in EDM, January 1871, p. 62.
19. Mary Trasko, Heavenly Soles: Extraordinary Twentieth-Century
Shoes (New York: Abbeville Press, 1989), p. 74.
20. London Life, June 10, 1933, p. 22.
21. HAPPY HEELS, in London Life, May 31, 1930.
22. Mr. X, “The Cult of the High Heel,” Photo Bits, March 25,
1910.
23. SIX-INCH HEELS, in London Life, April 15, 1933, pp. 44–45.
24. Photo Bits, June 2, 1910.
25. “Peggy Paget’s Patent Paralyzing Pedal Props,” Photo Bits,
May 14, 1910.
26. High Heels, January 1962, pp. 7–11.
27. Ibid.
28. High Heels, February 1962, p. 37.
29. HIGH-HEELED, in London Life, May 31, 1930.
30. High Heels, January 1962, pp. 9–10.
31. Ibid., pp. 8–9.
32. Leg Show, September 1994, pp. 16, 78–81.
 33. Richard von Kra t-Ebing, Psychopathia Sexualis with Especial
Reference to the Antipathic Sexual Instinct: A Medico-Forensic Study,
trans. F.J. Rebman (1886; New York: Physicians and Surgeons Book
Company, 1906, 1934), pp. 172–175.
34. Quoted in Havelock Ellis, Studies in the Psychology of Sex
(New York: Random House, 1936), vol. 2, pt. 1, pp. 33–34.
35. Ibid., pp. 34–35.
36. Ibid., pp. 34–38.
37. Photocopy in Fetish File, Kinsey Institute.
38. London Life, May 13, 1933, p. 22.
39. Helmut Newton, intro. Karl Lagerfeld, with comments by
Helmut Newton (New York: Pantheon Books, 1987), image 36.
40. “Panty Raid,” in Carlson Wade, Panty Raid and Other Stories
of Transvestism and Female Impersonation (New York: Selbee, 1963).
41. Booted Master (New York: Star, n.d. [ca. 1980]), pp. 8, 5.
42. Ibid, pp. 15–17, 19, 41.
43. Ibid, pp. 3, 42, 46, 75–77, 163.
44. George Wilson, Boot-Licking Slave (n.p, n.d.), p. 149.
45. Richard G. Parker, Bodies, Pleasures and Passions: Sexual
Culture in Contemporary Bra-zil (Boston: Beacon Press, 1991), pp. 52–
53.
46. A SUSCEPTIBLE BACHELOR, in EDM, October 1, 1870, p. 253.
47. NiMROD, in EDM, October 1, 1870, p. 254.
48. Robert Stoller, Sex and Gender: On the Development of
Masculinity and Femininity (New York: Science House, 1968), p. 219.
 49. Case history recorded by Mrs. H. Hug-Hellmuth, quoted in
Wilhelm Stekel, Sexual Aberrations: The Phenomenon of Fetishism in
Relation to Sex, trans. Samuel Parker (New York: Liveright, 1971),
vol. 1, p. 295.
50. Leg Show, September 1994, p. 105.
51. Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death (New York: Free Press,
1973), p. 237.
52. Quoted in ibid, p. 236.
53. Ibid, pp. 235–236.
54. Stekel, Sexual Aberrations, vol. 1, p. 227.
55. Ibid, p. 31.
56. Internet, 1994.
57. Je rey Meyers, Scott Fitzgerald (New York: HarperCollins,
1994), pp. 12–14.
58. Becker, Denial of Death, p. 235.
59. Ibid, p. 236.
60. E. Glover, “Sublimation, Substitution and Social Anxiety”
(1931), in On the EarlyDevelopment of Mind (London: Imago, 1956),
pp. 146–147.
61. E. Glover, “A Note on Idealization” (1938), in ibid, pp. 293–
294.
62. Kra t-Ebing, Psychopathia Sexualis, pp. 261–262.
63. Ibid, pp. 262–264.
64. For example, that of Louis Nizer, My Life in Court (Garden
City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1961), pp. 199–204.
 65. See, for example, Paul H. Gebhard, “Fetishism and
Sadomasochism,” in Sex Research: Studies from The Kinsey Institute,
ed. Martin Weinberg (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976), p.
159.
66. Quoted in Rossi, Sex Life of the Foot and Shoe, p. 183.
67. Mark Elliott Dietz and Barbara Evans, “Pornographic
Imagery and Prevalence of Paraphilia,” American Journal of
Psychiatry 139 (1982), cited in William B. Arndt, Gender Disorders
and the Paraphilias (Madison, Conn.: International Universities Press,
1991), p. 176.
68. Dian Hanson, “Just My Opinion: Perfect Strangers,” Leg
Show, September 1994, pp. 4–5.
69. Gebhard, “Fetishism and Sadomasochism,” p. 160.
70. Magnuson, “Hell on Heels,” pp. 128, 130, 131.
71. Faith Bearden, “Cruel Shoes,” Bizarre, no. 4 (1994): 46–49.
72. “Boots Are Made for Walking,” Bizarre, no. 4 (1994): 54.
73. Robert Stoller, Pain and Passion: A Psychoanalyst Explores the
World of S&M (New York: Plenum, 1991), pp. 84–85.
74. “Vive la Di erence,” Wall Street Journal, October 15, 1984, p.
35.
75. Magnuson, “Hell on Heels,” p. 130.
76. Salvatore Ferragamo, Shoemaker of Dreams (London: Harrap,
1957), pp. 208, 69.
77. A selection of catalogues from Frederick’s of Hollywood and
Victoria’s Secret were examined, especially at the Kinsey Institute.
78. High Heels, February 1962, p. 2.
 79. Magnuson, “Hell on Heels,” pp. 130–131.
80. Holly Brubach, “Shoe Crazy,” Atlantic, May 1986, p. 87.
81. Frances Rogers Little, “Sitting Pretty,” Allure, June 1994, pp.
34, 149.
Chapter 5
1. Flyer distributed by the Lingerie Lounge, 216 West Fiftieth
Street, New York, N.Y.
2. Alison Carter, Underwear: The Fashion History (New York:
Drama Books, 1992), p. 15.
3. Anne Buck, “Foundations of the Active Woman,” in La Belle
Epoch: Costume, 1890–1914, ed. Ann Saunders (London: Costume
Society, 1968), p. 43.
4. Emile Zola, Au bonheur des dames (1883; Paris: Livre de Poche,
n.d.), p. 478.
5. Quoted in Gertrude Aretz, The Elegant Woman from the Rococo
Period to Modern Times, trans. James Laver (London: Harrap, 1932),
p. 273.
6. Lady’s Realm, April 1903; Mrs. Eric Pritchard, The Cidt of
Chi on (London: Grant Richards, 1902), quoted in Valerie Steele,
Fashion and Eroticism: Ideals of Feminine Beauty ’om the Victorian Era
to the Jazz Age (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), p. 195.
7. Comtesse de Tramar, Le Bréviare de la femme (Paris: Havard,
1903), quoted in Steele, Fashion and Eroticism, p. 207.
8. Baroness d’Orchamps, Tous les secrets de la femme (Paris,
1907), pp. 78–79.
9. SATIN WAIST, in Society, September 23, 1899, p. 1871.
 10. Modem Society, October 13, 1900, p. 1555.
11. Modern Society, October 31, 1903, p. 1648.
12. “The Strange History of a Lace Petticoat,” Modern Society,
April 23, 1892, p. 713.
13. Wilhelm Stekel, Sexual Aberrations: The Phenomenon of
Fetishism in Relation to Sex (New York: Liveright, 1930), vol. 1, pp.
126–127.
14. Clipping in Vertical File, “Underwear,” Kinsey Institute.
15. Magnus Hirshfeld, Sexual Anomalies and Perversions: Physical
and Psychological Development, Diagnosis and Treatment, comp. and
ed. Norman Haire (1938; London: Encyclopaedic Press, 1962), p.
578.
16. Robert Stoller, Pain and Passion: A Psychoanalyst Explores the
World of S&M (New York: Plenum, 1991), pp. 83–84.
17. Vertical File, Kinsey Institute.
18. Magnus Hirshfeld, Transvestites: The Erotic Drive to Cross
Dress, trans. Michael Lombardi-Nash (Bu alo: Prometheus Books,
1991), p. 63.
19. Le Sport (1873), quoted in Romi, Histoire pittoresque du
pantalon féminin (Paris: Jacques Grancher, 1979), p. 68.
20. René Maizeroy, UAdorée (1887), quoted in Romi, Histoire
pittoresque du pantalon féminin, p. 74.
21. Dianne Kendall, “Pampered in Panties,” Repartee 12 (1993):
43.
22. Dianne Kendall, private communication April 29, 1993.
 23. Quoted in William B. Arndt, Gender Disorders and the
Paraphilias (Madison, Conn.: International Universities Press, 1991),
pp. 86–87.
24. LOVER OF LINGERIE, in London Life, March 6, 1933, p. 23.
25. “Undercover News,” in Carlson Wade, Panty Raid and Other
Stories of Transvestism and Female Impersonation (New York: Selbee,
1963).
26. Erolastica[catalogue], December 1974, p. 16; “Candy Pants,”
Playgiri, June 1976, p. 113.
27. William H. Masters, Virginia E. Johnson, and Robert C.
Kolodny, Heterosexuality (New York: HarperCollins, 1994), pp. 216–
217.
28. Richard von Kra t-Ebing, Psychopathia Sexualis with Especial
Reference to the Antipathic Sexual Instinct: A Medico-Forensic Study,
trans. F. J. Rebman (1886; New York: Physicians and Surgeons Book
Company, 1906, 1934), p. 250–251.
29. Stekel, Sexual Aberrations, vol. 1, p. 100.
30. “Unacceptable Lace of Capitalism,” Economist, October 9,
1993, p. 76.
31. Nicholas Borno , Pink Samurai: Love, Marriage & Sex in
Contemporary Japan (New York: Pocket Books, 1991), pp. 295–296,
71.
32. Hirshfeld, Sexual Anomalies and Perversions, pp. 583–587.
33. Brenda Love, Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices (Fort Lee,
N.J.: Barricade Books, 1992), p. 111.
34. “Panty Raid,” in Wade, Panty Raid.
 35. Robert Stoller, Perversion: The Erotic Form of Hatred (New
York: Pantheon Books, 1975), p. 81.
36. “Panty Raid,” in Wade, Panty Raid.
37. Richard Martin, “Ideology and Identity: The Homoerotic and
Homospectatorial Look in Menswear Imagery and George Piatt
Lynes’ Photyograph of Carl Carlson” (Paper delivered at the annual
meeting of The Costume Society of America, Montreal, May 1994).
38. Rodney Bennett-England, Dress Optional: The Revolution in
Menswear (London: Peter Owen, 1967), p. 42.
39. Ibid, pp. 44–45.
40. Miscellaneous catalogues and advertisements, Kinsey
Institute.
41. Valerie Steele, “Clothing and Sexuality,” in Men and Women:
Dressing the Part, ed. Claudia Kidwell and Valerie Steele
(Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989), pp. 56–57.
42. Valerie Steele, “Calvinism Unclothed,” Design Quarterly, Fall
1992, p. 32.
43. Dan Shaw, “Unmentionables? No More,” New York Times,
August 14, 1994, pp. 49, 52.
44. Advertisement for Spun, “the contact fanzine for underwear
fetish fans,” in Gay Times, January 1994, p. 35.
45. Paul Walters, “The Nyloned Mystique: The Garter Belt,”
Nylon Jungle 4 (1967): 25, 49.
46. “Her Lingerie Limbo,” Nylon Jungle 4 (1967): 4, 18, 21.
47. Ira Levine, “Fashion & Fetish,” Details, March 1994, p. 158.
48. Poster, Kinsey Institute.
 49. Stekel, Sexual AbeiTations, vol. 1, pp. 86–87.
50. La Vie parisienne (1888), quoted in David Kunzle, Fashion and
Fetishism (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Little eld, 1982), p. 60.
51. Quoted in Stephanie Jones, “Sheer Pleasure,” in Skin Two
Retro 1 (London: Tim Woodward, 1991), p. 71.
52. Quoted in Ray Durgnat, “Rubber with Violence,”
International Times, November 14–27 [n.y.], p. 9, in Vertical File,
“Inanimate Fetishism,” Kinsey Institute.
53. Paul H. Gebhard, “Fetishism and Sadomasochism,” in Sex
Research: Studies from The Kinsey Institute, ed. Martin Weinberg (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1976), p. 160.
54. Modern Society, December 18, 1909, p. 23.
55. Society, August 8, 1895, p. 642; June 30, 1900, p. 463.
56. Journal entry, April 12, 1890, in Pages from The Goncourt
Journal, ed. and trans. Robert Baldick (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1978), pp. 356–357.
57. Philippe Perot, Fashioning the Bourgeoisie: A History of
Clothing in the Nineteenth Century, trans. Richard Bienvenu
(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994), p. 106.
58. C. Cody Collins, The Love of a Glove (New York: Fairchild,
1947), pp. 3–15.
59. Gerard Lénine, Sex on the Screen: Eroticism in Film, trans. D.
Jacobs (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1985), p. 72.
60. Edward Podolsky and Carlson Wade, Erotic Symbolism: A
Study of Fetishism in Relation to Sex (New York: Epic, 1960), p. 117.
61. Quoted in Collins, Love of a Glove, pp. 67–68.
 62. “Undercover News,” in Wade, Panty Raid.
63. Frederick’s of Hollywood catalogue, Kinsey Institute.
64. Gilbert Herdt and Robert Stoller, Intimate Communications:
Erotics and the Study of Cidture (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1990), pp. 59–69.
65. John Godwin, “Nudity—The Year’s Most Popular Fashion,”
Penthouse Forum, May 1974, pp. 22–27.
66. Eric John Dingwall, The American Woman: An Historical Study
(New York: Rinehart, 1956), pp. 183–185; Prudence Glynn, Skin to
Skin: Eroticism in Dress (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982),
pp. 31–57.
67. Gebhard, “Fetishism and Sadomasochism,” p. 160.
68. Clyde Farnsworth, “Shirts On, Shirts O : Canadian Feminists
Protest an Indecency Law,” New York Times, September 6, 1992, p.
3.
69. Paul Veyne, ed, A History of Private Life, vol. 1, From Pagan
Rome to Byzantium (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1987), p. 203.
70. Jean-Paul Gaultier, interview with Richard Smith, Gay Times,
January 1994, p. 58.
71. Ibid.
72. “Panty Raid,” in Wade, Panty Raid.
73. Robert Stoller, Sex and Gender: On the Development of
Masculinity and Femininity (New York: Science House, 1968), p. 220.
74. Quoted in Frank DeCaro, “Out from Under,” New York
Newsday, April 7, 1994, p. B43.
 75. Charlotte DuCann, “Love and Death on the London Catwalk,”
Guardian, October 15, 1990, p. 36.
76. Nightgowns are also speci cally designed to be worn in the
sexual arena of the bedroom. Several studies of transvestites
indicate that more than one-quarter wear a nightgown during sex.
According to a 1972 survey, 504 transvestites reported that the
garments they liked to wear during coitus were: nightgowns (27%),
panties (20%), padded bra (18%), hose (17%), high heels (11%),
and full costume (20%). See Chris Gosselin and Glen Wilson,
“Fetishism, Sadomasochism, and Related Behaviours,” in The
Psychology of Sexual Diversity, ed. Kevin Howells (Oxford: Blackwell,
1984), p. 98.
77. Dr. Daumas, “Hygiène et médecine” (1861), quoted in
Philippe Perrot, Les Dessuset les dessous de la bourgeoisie: Une histoire
du vêtement au XIX e siècle (Paris: Fayard, 1981), p. 267.
78. Vertical File, “Cat Girl,” Kinsey Institute.
79. Paul Cavaco and Josie Natori, quoted in DeCaro, “Out from
Under.”
80. Quoted in Robin Micheli, “Dreaming of a White Christmas,”
Money, December 1986, p. 117.
81. Woody Hochswender, “Pins & Needles,” Harper’s Bazaar,
June 1994, p. 164.
82. Clavel Brand, Fetish (London: Luxor Press, 1970), p. 24.
83. Jennifer Jackson, “Summer in Brief,” Harper’s Bazaar’, July
1994, p. 20.
Chapter 6
 1. Candice Bushneil, “Rubber Wear,” Vogue, September 1994, p.
254.
2. Tony Mitchell, “Scene & Heard: Cheek to Chick,” Skin Two, no.
9 (1989): 18–21.
3. Quoted in Frances Rogers Little, “Sitting Pretty,” Allure, June
1994, pp. 154, 149.
4. Gilles Deleuze, Masochism: An Interpretation of Coldness and
Cruelty (New York: Bra-ziller, 1971), appendix 2, p. 234.
5. Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, Venus in Furs, trans. Jean McNeil,
quoted in ibid, p. 201.
6. Gaylyn Studlar, “Masochism, Masquerade, and the Erotic
Metamorphoses of Marlene Dietrich,” in Fabrications: Costume and
the Female Body, ed. Jane Gaines and Charlotte Herzog (New York:
Routledge, 1990), pp. 234–237.
7. Sacher-Masoch, Venus in Furs, quoted in Deleuze, Masochism,
pp. 201–202.
8. Iwan Bloch, The Sexual Life of Our Time, trans. M. Eden Paul
(1908; New York: Allied, 1928), p. 150.
9. Richard von Kra t-Ebing, Psychopathia Sexualis with Especial
Reference to the Antipathic Sexual Instinct: A Medico-Forensic Study,
trans. F. J. Rebman (1886; New York: Physicians and Surgeons Book
Company, 1906, 1934), pp. 271–272.
10. Ibid, p. 272.
11. Ibid, pp. 270–271.
12. Magnus Hirshfeld, Sexual Anomalies and Perversions: Physical
and Psychological Devel-opment, Diagnosis and Treatment, comp, and
ed. Norman Haire (1938; London: Encyclopaedic Press, 1962), p.
575.
13. Robert Wood, “Fur Fetishism,” Sexology, February 1956, pp.
427–431.
14. Kra t-Ebing, Psychopathia Sexualis, p. 274.
15. London Life, May 27, 1933, p. 43.
16. BLACK VELVET, in London Life, May 13, 1933, p. 22.
17. Cosmopolite, “The Fascination of the Fetish,” Photo Bits, May
13, 1911, pp. 8–9.
18. Kra t-Ebing, Psychopathia Sexualis, pp. 276–277’.
19. Ibid, pp. 274–275.
20. Gaëtan Gatian de Clérambault, Passion erotique des éto es
chez la femme (1908; Paris: Empêcheurs de Penser en Rond, 1991),
p. 19.
21. Jann Matlock, “Masquerading Women, Pathologized Men:
Cross-Dressing, Fetishism, and the Theory of Perversion, 1882–
1935,” in Fetishism as Cultural Discourse, ed. Emily Apter and
William Pietz (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1993), pp. 31–
61.
22. Biz-zarre Club mimeographed correspondence, collected in
1954, Kinsey Institute.
23. Both Punished in Silk (New York: Exotique, [early 1960s])
and Mistress in Satin (New York: Exotique, [early 1960s]) are photo-
ction paperbacks.
24. “Undercover News,” in Carlson Wade, Panty Raid and Other
Stories of Transvestism and Female Impersonation (New York: Selbee,
1963).
25. Natural Rubber Company, brochure (London, n. d.).
26. SILK MAC, in London Life, February 25, 1933, p. 44.
27. RUBBER LOVER, in London Life, May 13, 1933, p. 23.
28. CHROMIUM KID, in London Life, March 25, 1933, pp. 44–45.
29. MACAMOUR in London Life, April 15, 1933, p. 55.
30. London Life, May 20, 1933, p. 20.
31. London Life, September 30, 1933, p. 31.
32. OILSILK, in London Life, May 25, 1940, p. 67.
33. Biz-zarre Club correspondence, 1954, Kinsey Institute.
34. William B. Arndt, Gender Disorders and the Paraphilias
(Madison, Conn.: International Universities Press, 1991), p. 207.
35. Clavel Brand, The Kinky Crowd, vol. 1, The Rubber Devotee
and The Leather Lover (London: Luxor Press, 1970), pp. 14–15.
36. Quoted in Gillian Freeman, The Undergrowth of Literature
(London: Nelson, 1967), p. 157.
37. Ibid, pp. 146–148.
38. Natural Rubber Company, “Just to Show You What We Can
Do” [pamphlet] (London, n.d. [ca. 1965]).
39. Robert Bledsoe, Male Sexual Deviations and Bizarre Practices
(Los Angeles: Sherborne, 1964), pp. 135–138.
40. Marie Constance of Dressing for Pleasure, interview with
author, Spring 1994.
41. Quoted in Robert Stoller, Pain and Passion: A Psychoanalyst
Explores the World of S&M (New York: Plenum, 1991), pp. 278–279.
42. Ibid, pp. 279–282.
 43. Wilhelm Stekel, Sexual Aberrations: The Phenomenon of
Fetishism in Relation to Sex, trans. Samuel Parker (New York:
Liveright, 1971), vol. 1, pp. 103–107.
44. Mick Farren, The Black Leather Jacket (New York: Abbeville
Press, 1985), p. 22.
45. Larry Townsend, The Leatherman’s Handbook (Beverly Hills,
Calif.: Le Salon, 1970, 1974, 1977), p. 282.
46. Roger F. Mays, Leather and Things[catalogue] (1977), Cornell
Human Sexuality Collection.
47. Hard Leather (New York: Star, 1980), pp. 22–28.
48. Townsend, Leatherman’s Handbook, p. 221.
49. Michael Grumley and Ed Gallucci, Hard Corps: Studies in
Leather and Sadomasochism (New York: Dutton, 1977), n.p.
50. Vito Russo, “Why Is Leather Like Ethel Merman?” Village
Voice, April 15–21, 1981, p. 37.
51. John Preston, “What Happened?” in Leather folk: Radical Sex,
People, Politics, and Practice, ed. Mark Thompson (Boston: Alyson,
1991), p. 212.
52. Grumley and Gallucci, Hard Corps.
53. Quoted in Gloria G. Brame, William D. Brame, and Jon
Jacobs, Di erent Loving: An Exploration of the World of Sexual
Dominance and Submission (New York: Villard Books, 1994), p. 396.
54. Quoted in Lynn Longway, “Going Hell-for-Leather,”
Newsweek, October 19, 1981, p. 90.
55. Colin McDowell, Dressed to Kill: Sex, Power & Clothes
(London: Hutchinson, 1992), pp. 12, 31, 48.
 56. Pat Califa, “Beyond Leather: Expanding the Realm of the
Senses to Rubber,” from “Dominas: Women with Attitude,” Skin
Two, no. 11 (n.d. [1993]): 29.
57. T. S, in Family Doctor, February 16, 1889, p. 393.
58. See, for example, “The Latest Fashionable Craze,” Society,
March 25, 1899, p. 1341.
59. AUNTIE’S IDOL, in London Life, September 30, 1933, p. 62.
60. Piercing Fans International, October 1, 1977, p. 4.
61. Charles Gatewood, interview in Carlo McCormick, “American
Primitive,” Paper, Summer 1993, p. 26.
62. Quoted in Guy Trebay, “Primitive Culture,” Village Voice,
November 12, 1991, p. 37.
63. Quoted in Suzy Menkes, “Fetish or Fashion?” New York
Times, November 23, 1993, sec. 9, pp. 1, 9.
64. “Alien Beauty,” Paper, November 1993, p. 39.
65. Eric Perret, “Urban Savages,” Esquire Gentleman, Fall 1993, p.
103.
Chapter 7
1. Sigmund Freud, “Formulations on the Two Principles of
Mental Functioning,” in The Standard Edition of the Complete
Psychological Works (London: Hogarth Press and The Institute for
Psychoanalysis, 1953–1975), vol. 12, p. 222.
2. Sheila Anne Feeney, “Time to Dress for Sexcess,” Daily News
“New York Life,” February 12, 1989, p. 3.
3. Quoted in James Servin, “Chic or Cruel?” New York Times,
November 1, 1992, sec. 9, p. 10.
 4. Harper’s Bazaar, September 1992, p. 319.
5. Quoted in Servin, “Chic or Cruel?” p. 10.
6. Randall, interview with the author, June 1993.
7. Quoted in Servin, “Chic or Cruel?” p. 10.
8. Elizabeth Wilson, “Making an Appearance,” in Stolen Glances:
Lesbians Take Photographs, ed. Kate Bo n (New York: Harper &
Row, 1991), p. 25.
9. Quoted in Servin, “Chic or Cruel?” p. 10.
10. Jean Laplanche and Jean-Bertrand Pontalis, “Fantasy and the
Origins of Sexuality,” in Formations of Fantasy, ed. Victor Burgin et
al. (London: Methuen, 1986), pp. 18–20.
11. Elizabeth Cowie, “Pornography and Fantasy: Psychoanalytic
Perspectives,” in Sex Exposed: Sexuality and the Pornography Debate,
ed. Lynn Segal and Mary Mcintosh (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers
University Press, 1993), pp. 137–139.
12. Ibid, pp. 135–136.
13. Robert Stoller, Observing the Erotic Imagination (New Haven,
Conn.: Yale University Press, 1985), p. 155.
14. Louise Kaplan, Female Perversions: The Temptations of Emma
Bovary (New York: Doubleday, 1991), p. 54.
15. Robert C. Bak, “The Phallic Woman: The Ubiquitous Fantasy
in Perversions,” Psychoanalytic Study of the Child 23 (1968): 35.
16. Mistress Jacqueline, as told to Catherine Tavel and Robert H.
Rimmer, Whips and Kisses: Parting the Leather Curtain (Bu alo:
Prometheus Books, 1991), pp. 228–229.
17. Madame Sadi, quoted in Skin Two, no. 11 (n.d. [1993]): 24.
 18. Joyce McDougall, Theatres of the Mind: Illusion and Truth on
the Psychoanalytic Stage (New York: Basic Books, 1985), p. 45.
19. Pat Califa, quoted in Cowie, “Pornography and Fantasy” p.
150.
20. Private communication.
21. Lily West, “Letter from Japan,” Repartee, no. 14 (n.d.): 48.
22. Advertisement for Shemale, in Female Impersonator News, no.
42, (n.d.): p. 4.
23. Larry Townsend, The Leatherman’s Handbook (Beverly Hills,
Calif: Le Salon, 1970, 1974, 1977), p. 143.
24. File, “Fetish-Costume-Leather,” Kinsey Institute.
25. Townsend, Leatherman’s Handbook, pp. 302–303.
26. Ibid, pp. 282–286.
27. G.B.M. Leathers, advertising yer, le “Clothing Catalogs
(Male) (U.S.) (20th Century), Kinsey Institute.
28. Townsend, Leatherman’s Handbook, pp. 217–218.
29. Ron, quoted in Robert Stoller, Pain and Passion: A
Psychoanalyst Explores the World of S&M (New York: Plenum, 1991),
p. 282.
30. Nathan Joseph, Uniforms and Nonuniforms: Communicating
Through Clothing (New York: Greenwood Press, 1986), pp. 66–68,
see also pp. 106–107, 116.
31. Magnus Hirshfeld, Die Homosexualität, quoted in Wilhelm
Stekel, Sexual Aberrations: The Phenomenon of Fetishism in Relation to
Sex, trans. Samuel Parker (New York: Liveright, 1971), vol. 1, pp.
305–307.
 32. Quoted in F. Valentine Hooven III, Tom of Finland: His Life
and Times (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993), p. 23.
33. Hermann Broch, The Sleepwalkers, trans. Willa Muir and
Edwin Muir (1931; New York: Pantheon, 1964), p. 21.
34. Beatrice J. Kaiisch, Philip A. Kalisch, and Mary L. McHugh,
“The Nurse as a Sex Object in Motion Pictures, 1930 to 1980,”
Research in Nursing and Health 5 (1982): 147, 152.
35. Marcia Pally, “Sorrow and Silk Stockings: The Woeful State
of Femme,” Advocate, September 17, 1985 p. 35.
36. Quoted in Georgina Howell, “Chain Reactions,” Vogue,
September 1992, p. 620.
37. Sarah Mower, “Who’d Be a Bond Girl?” Harper’s Bazaar,
December 1994, p. 150.
38. Quoted in Debbi Voller, Madonna: The Style Book (London:
Omnibus Press, 1992), pp. 40^1.
39. Quoted in Valerie Steele, Women of Fashion: Twentieth-
Century Designers (New York: Rizzoli, 1991), p. 160.
40. Kaja Silverman, “Fragments of a Fashionable Discourse,” in
Studies in Entertainment: Critical Approaches to Mass Culture, ed. Tania
Modelski (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986), pp. 145,
147.
41. Quoted in Servin, “Chic or Cruel?” p. 10.
42. I borrowed this phrase from Donald Symons, The Evolution of
Human Sexuality (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 304.
43. John Money, Gay, Straight, and In-Between: The Sexology of
Erotic Orientation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), pp.
136–137, 149, 159, 169–184.
44. “Freud and Fetishism: Previously Unpublished Minutes of the
Vienna Psychoanalytic Society,” trans, and ed. Louis Rose,
Psychoanalytic Quarterly 57 (1988): 156.
45. Gail Faurschou, “Fashion and the Cultural Logic of
Postmodernity,” in Body Invaders: Panic Sex in America, ed. Arthur
Kroker and Marilouise Kroker (Montreal: New World Perspectives,
1987), p. 83.
46. Francette Pacteau, The Symptom of Beauty (London: Reaktion
Books, 1994), p. 191.
47. Scott Tucker, “The Hanged Man,” in Leather folk: Radical Sex,
People, Politics, and Practice, ed. Mark Thompson (Boston: Alyson,
1991), p. 11.
48. Annie Woodhouse, Fantastic Women: Sex, Gender and
Transvestism (London: Macmillan, 1989), pp. 139, 144.
49. John Duka, “Should Women Dress Like Men?” New York
Times Magazine, March 4, 1984, p. 175.
50. Tony Mitchell, “Frock Tactics,” Skin Two, no. 14 (1994): 58–
59.
51. Ken Plummer, “Sexual Diversity: A Sociological Perspective,”
in The Psychology of Sexual Diversity, ed. Kevin Howells (Oxford:
Blackwell, 1984), pp. 244–245.
52. Krystina Kitsis, “Costume Drama,” in Skin Two Retro 1
(London: Tim Woodward, 1991), p. 40.
53. Michelle Olley, “Jean-Paul Gaultier: Rascal of Radical Chic,”
in The Best of Skin Two, ed. Tim Woodward (London: Kasak Books,
1993), p. 48.
54. Quoted in Richard Smith, “Jean-Paul Gaultier: Half a Rebel,”
Gay Times, January 1994, p. 58.
55. 0: Fashion, Fetish, Fantasy, no. 13, (n.d. [1992]): p. 4.
56. Valerie Steele, “Paint It Black,” View on Color 1 (1992): 64–
69.
57. Jack Katz, Seductions of Crime: Moral and Sensual Attractions
in Doing Evil (New York: Basic Books, 1988), pp. 358, 72, 81.
58. Janine Chasseguet-Smirgel, Creativity and Perversion (New
York: Norton, 1985), p. 9.
59. Kaja Silverman, Male Subjectivity at the Margins (New York:
Routledge, 1992), p. 187.
60. Seymour Fisher, Sexual Images of the Self: The Psychology of
Erotic Sensations and Illusions (Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1989), p.
216, see also pp. 214–217.
61. Quoted in Ruth La Ferla, “Terminatrix Style,” Elle, June
1994, p. 62.
62. Michael Mason, The Making of Victorian Sexuality: Sexual
Behavior and Its Understanding (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), pp.
99–100.
63. Jonathan Dollimore, Sexual Dissidence: Augustine to Wilde,
Freud to Foucault (Oxford: Clarendon Pres, 1991), esp. pp. 222–223.
64. Michael V, quoted in Gloria G. Brame, William D. Brame,
and Jon Jacobs, Di erent Loving: An Explortion of the World of Sexual
Dominance and Submission (New York: Villard Books, 1994), p. 396.
 65. Diane Ackerman, A Natural History of Love (New York:
Random House, 1994), pp. 243–244.
66. Quoted in Maurice North, The Outer Fringe of Sex (London:
Odyssey Press, 1970), p. 40.
67. See Chapters 1 and 2.
68. Joyce McDougall, “Identi cations, Neoneeds, and
Neosexualities,” Intematmial Journal of Psychoanalysis 67 (1986): 20.
69. Fred Davis, “Clothing and Fashion as Communication,” in
The Psychology of Fashion, ed. Michael Solomon (Lexington, Mass.:
Lexington Books, 1985), pp. 24–25.
 Selected Bibliography
Abraham, Karl. “Remarks on the Psycho-Analysis of a Case of Foot
and Corset Fetishism” (1910). In Selected Papers of Karl Abraham.
New York: Basic Books, 1960.
Ackerman, Diane. A Natural History of Love. New York: Random
House, 1994.
Ackroyd, Peter. Dressing Up: Transvestism and Drag: The History of an
Obsession. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1979.
Allen, Cli ord. “The Erotic Meaning of Clothes.” Sexology 41 (1974):
31–34.
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders. 3rd ed. rev. Washington, D.C.: American
Psychiatric Association, 1987.
–––. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed. rev.
Washington D.C.: American Psychiatric Association, 1994.
Apter, Emily. Feminizing the Fetish: Psychoanalysis and Narrative
Obsession in Tum-of-the-Century France. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell
University Press, 1991.
–––. “Specularity and Reproduction.” Fetish 4 (1992): 20–35.
Apter, Emily, and William Pietz, eds. Fetishism as Cultural Discourse.
Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1993.
Arndt, William B. Gender Disorders and the Paraphilias. Madison,
Conn.: International Universities Press, 1991.
Attorney General of the United States. Final Report of the Attorney
General’s Commission on Pornography. Nashville: Rutledge Hill Press,
1986.
Bak, Robert C. “Fetishism.” Journal of the American Psychoanalytic
Association 1 (1953): 285–298.
–––. “The Phallic Woman: The Ubiquitous Fantasy in Perversions.”
Psychoanalytic Study of the Child 23 (1968): 15–36.
Bakos, Susan Crain. Kink: The Hidden Sex Lives of Americans. New
York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995.
–––. “Sexual Obsessions.” Ladies’ Home Journal, April 1993, pp. 110–
114.
Baudin, P. Fetichism and Fetich Worshippers. New York: Benziger
Brothers, 1885.
Baudrillard, Jean. For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign.
St. Louis: Telos Press, 1981.
Bearden, Faith. “Cruel Shoes.” Bizaire. no. 4 (1994): 46–49.
Becker, Ernest. The Denial of Death. New York: Free Press, 1973.
Benstock, Shari, and Suzanne Ferris, eds. On Fashion. New
Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1994.
Betterton, Rosemary, ed. Looking On: Images of Femininity in the
Visual Arts. London: Pandora, 1987.
Betts, Katherine. “Under Construction.” Vogue, October 1994, pp.
383–384, 414.
Binet, Alfred. “Le Fétichisme dans l’amour: Etude de psychologie
morbide.” Revue philosophique 24 (1887): 143–67, 252–274.
Bloch, Iwan. The Sexual Life of Our Time. Trans. M. Eden Paul. 1908.
New York: Allied, 1928.
“Body Heat.” Vogue, September 1994, pp. 574–581.
Borel, France. Le Vêtement incarné: Les métamorphoses du corps. Paris:
Calmann-Lévy, 1992.
Brame, Gloria G, William D. Brame, and Jon Jacobs. Di erent Loving:
An Exploration of the World of Sexual Dominance and Submission. New
York: Villard Books, 1994.
Brand, Clavel. Fetish. London: Luxor Press, 1970.
–––. The Kinky Crowd. Vol. 1, The Rubber Devotee and The Leather
Lover. London: Luxor Press, 1970.
Brubach, Holly. “Shoe Crazy.” Atlantic, May 1986, pp. 87–88.
. “Whose Vision Is It, Anyway?” New York Times Magazine, July 17,
1994, pp. 46–49.
Bullough, Vern L. Science in the Bedroom: A History of Sex Research.
New York: Basic Books, 1994.
Bullough, Vern L, and Bonnie Bullough. Cross Dressing, Sex, and
Gender. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
Bushnell, Candice. “Rubber Wear.” Vogue, September 1994, pp.
254–256.
Buss, David M. The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating.
New York: Basic Books, 1994.
Cali a, Pat. “The Power Exchange.” In Skin Two Retro 1. London:
Tim Woodward, 1991.
Canguilhem, Georges. The Normal and the Pathological. New York:
Zone Books, 1991.
Carter, Angela. The Sadeian Woman and the Ideology of Pornography.
New York: Pantheon Books, 1978.
Cauldwell, David O. “The Rubber Fetishist.” Sexology, June 1957,
pp. 716–721.
Chan, Lily M. V. “Foot Binding in Chinese Women and Its Psycho-
Social Implications.” Canadian Psychiatric Association Journal 15
(1970): 229–231.
Chasseguet-Smirgel, Janine. Creativity and Perversion. New York:
Norton, 1985.
–––. Sexuality and Mind: The Role of the Father and the Mother in the
Psyche. New York: New York University Press, 1986.
Chicklet. “Das Boot Brigade: An International Contact Club
Encourages Pride Among Men with a Passion for Boots.” Advocate,
March 10, 1992, pp. 64–65.
Clérambault, Gaétan Gatian de. Passion erotique des éto es chez la
femme. Preface by Yves Edel. 1908. Paris: Empêcheurs de Penser en
Rond, 1991.
Corbin, Alain. Women for Hire: Prostitution and Sexuality in France
After 1850. Trans. Alan Sheridan. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1990.
Cowie, Elizabeth. “Pornography and Fantasy: Psychoanalytic
Perspectives.” In Sex Exposed: Sexuality and the Pornography Debate,
ed. Lynn Segal and Mary Mcintosh. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers
University Press, 1993.
Craik, Jennifer. The Face of Fashion: Cultural Studies in Fashion.
London: Routledge, 1994.
Cunningham, Bill. “What Once Was Under Is Now Over.” New York
Times, July 31, 1988, p. 44.
Davidson, J. D. The Transvestite Handbook. London: D & I
Publications, 1988.
De Lauretis, Teresa. The Practice of Love: Lesbian Sexuality and
Perverse Desire. Blooming-ton: Indiana University Press, 1994.
Dietz, Mark Elliott, and Barbara Evans. “Pornographic Imagery and
Prevalence of Para-philia.” American Journal of Psychiatry 139
(1982): 1493–1495.
Docter, Richard F. Transvestites and Transsexuals: Toward a Theory of
Cross-Gender Behavior. New York: Plenum, 1988.
Dollimore, Jonathan. Sexual Dissidence: Augustine to Wilde, Freud to
Foucault. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991.
Dominguez, Ivo. Beneath the Skins: The New Spirit and Politics of the
Kink Community. Los Angeles: Daedalus, 1994.
DuCann, Charlotte. “Love and Death on the London Catwalk.”
Guardian, October 15, 1990, p. 36.
Duka, John. “Should Women Dress Like Men?” New York Times
Magazine, March 4, 1984, pp. 174–175.
Engel, Peter. “Androgynous Zones.” Harvard Magazine, January-
February 1985, pp. 24–34.
Epstein, Arthur W. “The Relationship of Altered Brain States to
Sexual Psychopathology.” In Contemporary Sexual Behavior: Critical
Issues in the 1970s, ed. Joseph Zubin and John Money. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973.
Eskara, Roy D. Bizarre Sex. London: Quartet Books, 1987.
Evans, Caroline, and Minna Thornton. Women and Fashion: A New
Look. London: Quartet Books, 1989.
Farren, Mick. The Black Leather Jacket. New York: Abbeville Press,
1985. Farrer, Peter. Men in Petticoats. Liverpool: Karn, 1987.
Feher, Michel, with Ramona Nadda and Nadia Tazi, eds. Fragments
for a History of the Human Body. 4 vols. New York: Zone Books,
1987–1994.
Fisher, Seymour. Sexual Images of the Self: The Psychology of Erotic
Sensations and Illusions. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1989.
Fogel, Gerald I, and Wayne A. Myers, eds. Perversions and Near-
Peruersions in Clinical Practice: New Psychoanalytic Perspectives. New
Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1991.
Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Trans.
Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage Books, 1979.
–––. The History of Sexuality. Vol. 1, An Introduction. Trans. Robert
Hurley. New York: Random House, 1978.
Freeman, Gillian. The Undergrowth of Literature. London: Nelson,
1967.
Freifeld, Karen. “What a Heel! Sole Suspect Nabbed in Maria Shoe
Thefts.” New York Newsday, July 17, 1992, pp. 3.
Freud, Sigmund. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological
Works. London: Hogarth Press and The Institute for Psychoanalysis,
1953–1975.
“Freud and Fetishism: Previously Unpublished Minutes of the
Vienna Psychoanalytic Society.” Ed. and trans. Louis Rose.
Psychoanalytic Quarterly 57 (1988): 147–166.
Friedman, Norma. “Leather: A New Look, a New Appeal.” Vogue,
August 1981, p. 179.
Friedrichs, David O. “The Body Taboo.” Sexual Behavior 2 (1972):
64–72.
Gaines, Jane, and Charlotte Herzog, eds. Fabrications: Costume and
the Female Body. New York: Routledge, 1990.
Gamman, Lorraine, and Merja Makinen. Female Fetishism: A New
Look. London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1994.
Garber, Marjorie. Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing and Cultural Anxiety.
New York and London: Routledge, 1992.
Gebhard, Paul H. “Fetishism and Sadomasochism.” In Sex Research
Studies from The Kinsey Institute, ed. Martin Weinberg. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1976.
Gibson, Pamela Church, and Roma Gibson, eds. Dirty Looks: Women,
Pornography, Power. London: British Film Institute, 1993.
Gilbert, Harriet, ed. The Sexual Imagination from Acker to Zola: A
Feminist Companion. London: Cape, 1993.
Gillespie, W. H. “A Contribution to the Study of Fetishism.”
International Journal of Psychoanalysis 21 (1940): 401–415.
–––. “A General Theory of Sexual Perversion.” International Journal
of Psychoanalysis 37 (1956): 396–403.
Glover, E. “Sublimation, Substitution and Social Anxiety” (1931)
and “A Note on Idealization” (1938). In E. Glover, On the Early
Development of Mind. London: Imago, 1956.
Godwin, John. “Nudity—The Year’s Most Popular Fashion.”
Penthouse Forum, May 1974, pp. 22–27.
Gosselin, Chris, and Glenn Wilson. Sexual Variations: Fetishism,
Sadomasochism, and Transvestism. London: Faber and Faber, 1980.
Greenacre, Phyllis. “Fetishism.” In Sexual Deviation, 2nd ed, ed.
Ismond Rosen. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979.
Grimes, William. “The Chanel Platform.” New York Times, May 17,
1992, p. 8.
Gross, Michael. “Lingerie Catalogues: Changing Images.” New York
Times, April 26, 1987, p. 61.
Grumley, Michael, and Ed Gallucci. Hard Corps: Studies in Leather
and Sadomasochism. New York: Dutton, 1977.
Herdt, Gilbert, and Robert Stoller. Intimate Communications: Erotics
and the Study of Culture. New York: Columbia University Press,
1990.
Hirshfeld, Magnus. Sexual Anomalies and Perversions: Physical and
Psychological Development, Diagnosis and Treatment. Comp, and ed.
Norman Haire. 1938. London: Encyclopedic Press, 1962.
–––. Transvestites: The Erotic Drive to Cross Dress. Trans. Michael
Lombardi-Nash. Bu alo: Prometheus Books, 1991.
Hoare, Sarajane. “Inside Out.” [British] Vogue, February 1991, pp.
116–125.
Hochswender, Woody. “Strong Suit. But Why Does a Woman in a
Necktie Look Potent, Not Perverse?” New York Times, May 3, 1992,
sec. 9, p. 10.
Hollander, Anne. “Dressed to Thrill: The Cool and Casual Style of
the New American Androgeny.” New Republic, January 28, 1985, pp.
28–35.
Horyn, Cathy. “Of Women’s Bondage.” Mirabella, March 1993, pp.
115–118.
Howell, Georgina. “Chain Reactions.” Vogue, September 1992, pp.
531–534, 630.
Howells, Kevin, ed. The Psychology of Sexual Diversity. Oxford:
Blackwell, 1984.
Hunt, Lynn, ed. The Invention of Pornography: Obscenity and the
Origins of Modernity, 1500–1800. New York: Zone Books, 1993.
Janus, Samuel S, and Cynthia L. Janus. The Janus Report on Sexual
Behavior. New York: Wiley, 1993.
Jewell, Patrick. Vice Art: An Anthology of London’s Prostitute Cards.
Harrogate: Broadwater, 1993.
Jones, Hugh. The Sexual Fetish in Today’s Society. North Hollywood,
Calif.: Brandon House, 1965.
Jones, Stephanie. “Strictly Fashionable: A Straight-Laced Look at
Corsetry.” Skin Two, no. 9 (1989): 42–47.
“Jury Convicts Publicist of Footwear Theft.” New York Times,
February 17, 1994, p. B2.
Kaplan, Louise. Female Perversions: The Temptations of Emma Bovary.
New York: Double-day, 1991.
Katz, Jack. Seductions of Crime: Moral and Sensual Attractions in Doing
Evil. New York: Basic Books, 1988.
Kern, Stephen. Anatomy and Destiny: A Cultural History of the Human
Body. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1975.
Kirk, Kris, and Ed Heath. Men in Frocks. London: GMP Press, 1984.
Kocieniewski, David. “That’s Shoe Biz. Sole Searching.” New York
Newsday, July 27, 1993, pp. 1, 5.
Kohon, Gregorio. “Fetishism Revisited.” International Journal of
Psycho-Analysis 68 (1987): 213–228.
Kra t-Ebing, Richard von. Psychopathia Sexualis with Especial
Reference to the Antipathic Sexual Instinct: A Medico-Forensic Study.
Trans. F. J. Rebman. 1886. New York: Physicians and Surgeons
Book Company, 1906, 1934.
Kroker, Arthur, and Marilouise Kroker, eds. Body Invaders: Panic Sex
in America. Montreal: New World Perspectives, 1987.
Kroll, Eric. Eric KroWs Fetish Girls. Cologne: Benedikt Taschen, 1994.
Kunzle, David. Fashion and Fetishism. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and
Little eld, 1982.
La Ferla, Ruth. “Terminatrix Style.” Elle, June 1994, p. 62.
Laplanche, Jean, and Jean-Bertrand Pontalis. “Fantasy and the
Origins of Sexuality.” In Fondations of Fantasy, ed. Victor Burgin, et
al. London: Methuen, 1986.
La Torre, Ronald A. “Devaluation of the Human Love Object:
Heterosexual Rejection as a Possible Antecedent to Fetishism.”
Journal of Abnormal Psychology 89 (1980): 1295–1298.
Lemoine-Luccioni, Eugénie. La Robe: Essai psychanalytique sur le
vêtement. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1983.
Levy, Howard. Chinese Foot Binding. New York: Bell, 1972.
Longway, Lynn. “Going Hell-for-Leather.” Newsweek, October 19,
1981, p. 90.
Love, Brenda. Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices. Fort Lee, N.J.:
Barricade Books, 1992.
McClintock, Anne. “Maid to Order.” Skin Two, no. 14 (1994): 70–77.
McCully, Robert S. “A Jungian Commentary on Epstein’s Case (Wet-
Shoe Fetish).” Archives of Sexual Behavior 5 (1976): 185–187.
McDougall, Joyce. “Identi cations, Neoneeds, and Neosexualities.”
International Journal of Psychoanalysis 61 (1986): 19–31.
–––. “Perversions and Deviations in the Psychoanalytic Attitude:
Their E ects on Theory and Practice.” In Perversions and Near-
Perversions in Clinical Practice: New Psycholanalytic Perspectives, ed.
Gerald I. Fogel and Wayne A. Myers. New Haven, Conn.: Yale
University Press, 1991.
–––. Plea for a Measure of Abnormality. New York: Brunner/Mazel,
1992.
–––. “Primal Scene and Sexual Perversion.” International Journal of
Psychoanalysis 53 (1972): 371–384.
–––. Theatres of the Mind: Illusion and Truth on the Psychoanalytic
Stage. New York: Basic Books, 1985.
McDowell, Colin. Dressed to Kill: Sex, Power & Clothes. London:
Hutchinson, 1992.
Madame Kayne. The Corset in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries.
Brighton: Green elds, n.d. [ca. 1932].
Madison, Roger. “Dig Black Stockings and Boots?” Sexology 41
(1975): 25–29.
Magnuson, Ann. “Hell on Heels.” Allure, September 1994, pp. 128–
131.
Mason, Michael. The Making of Victorian Sexuality: Sexual Behavior
and Its Understanding. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.
Menkes, Suzy. “Fetish or Fashion?” New York Times, November 23,
1993, sec. 9, pp. 1, 9.
Metz, Christian. “Photography and Fetish.” In The Critical Image, ed.
Carol Squires. Seattle: Bay Press, 1990.
Mike. “The Belt: Perspectives on a Fetish.” Drummer, January 1993,
pp. 18–19.
Miller, Tamalyn. “This Skirt Sure Looks Snappy, But It May Be a
Problem to Hem.” Wall Street Journal, March 7, 1985, pp. 35.
Milligan, Don. Sex-Life: A Critical Commentary on the History of
Sexuality. London: Pluto Press, 1993.
Mistress Angel Stern. “A ‘Corset Moment’ with Pearl.” Verbal Abuse,
no. 3 (1994): 7.
Mistress Jacqueline, as told to Catherine Tavel and Robert H.
Rimmer. Whips and Kisses: Parting the Leather Curtain. Bu alo:
Prometheus Books, 1991.
Mitchell, Tony. “Frock Tactics.” Skin Two, no. 14 (1994): 58–59.
–––. “Scene & Heard: Cheek to Chic.” Skin Two, no. 9 (1989): 18–21.
Money, John. Gay, Straight, and In-Between: The Sexology of Erotic
Orientation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Morneau, Robert H, and Robert R. Rockwell. Sex, Motivation, and the
Criminal O ender Spring eld, Ill.: Thomas, 1980.
Morrocchi, Riccardo, and Stefano Piselli. Diva Fetish. Florence:
Glittering Images, 1992.
Mower, Sarah. “Fashion Intelligence: Of Human Bondage.” [British]
Vogue, February 1991, p. 15.
–––. “Who’d Be a Bond Girl?” Harper’s Bazaar, December 1994, pp.
150–153, 199.
Mulvey, Laura. Visual and Other Pleasures. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1989.
Musafar, Fakir. “The Corset and Sadomasochism.” Sandutopia
Guardian: A Dungeon Journal, no. 11 (n.d.): 13–17.
Nazarie , Serge. Jeux de dames cruelles, 1850–1960. Cologne:
Benedikt Taschen, 1992.
North, Maurice. The Outer Fringe of Sex. London: Odyssey Press,
1970.
Olley, Michelle. “Jean-Paul Gaultier: Rascal of Radical Chic.” In The
Best of Skin Two, ed. Tim Woodward. London: Kasak Books, 1993.
O’Malley, Suzanne. “How I Spiced Up My Sex Life.” Redbook, April
25, 1985, pp. 100, 131.
O’Neill, Molly. “The Arm Fetish.” New York Times, May 3, 1992, sec.
9, pp. 1, 13.
Pally, Marcia. “Sorrow and Silk Stockings: The Woeful State of
Femme.” Advocate, September 17, 1985, pp. 35, 46.
Peiss, Kathy, and Christina Simmons, with Robert A. Padgug, eds.
Passion and Power: Sexuality in History. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press, 1989.
Phillips, Mike, with Barry Shapiro and Mark Joseph. Forbidden
Fantasies: Men Who Dare to Dress in Drag. New York: Collier, 1980.
Pictorial History of the Corset [three-volume compilation of clippings
about corsetry with typewritten commentary]. Art Library, Brooklyn
Museum.
Podolsky, Edward, and Carlson Wade. Erotic Symbolism: A Study of
Fetishism in Relation to Sex. New York: Epic, 1960.
Polan, Brenda. “High Heel Fantasies.” Daily Mail, August 21, 1990,
pp. 13.
Polhemus, Ted. Body Styles. Luton: Leonard Books, 1988.
–––. Street Style: From Sidewalk to Catwalk. London: Thames and
Hudson, 1994.
Raab, Andrea. “Fetishes.” Self April 1992, p. 94.
“Reverse Chic Rubber Garb Springs into High Fashion.” People,
September 3, 1984, p. 89.
Ridley, Matt. The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature.
New York: Macmillan, 1993.
Robinson, Julian. Body Packaging: A Guide to Human Sexual Display.
Los Angeles: Elysium Growth Press, 1988.
Rolley, Katrina. “Love, Desire and the Pursuit of the Whole: Dress
and the Lesbian Couple.” In Chic Thrills: A Fashion Reader, ed.
Elizabeth Wilson and Juliet Ash. London: Pandora/HarperCollins,
1992.
Rose, Barbara. “The Beautiful and the Damned.” Vogue, November
1978, pp. 324–326.
Rose, Cynthia. “Skin Deep.” Guardian Weekend, March 5, 1994, p.
29.
Rossi, William A. The Sex Life of the Foot and Shoe. Ware:
Wordsworth, 1977.
“Roundtable: Sex and Clothing.” Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality
4 (1970): 114–161.
Russo, Vito. “Why Is Leather Like Ethel Merman?” Village Voice,
April 15–21, 1981, p. 37.
Sacher-Masoch, Leopold von. Venus in Furs. Trans. Jean McNeil. In
Giles Deleuze, Masochism: An Interpretation of Coldness and Cmelty.
New York: Braziller, 1971.
Sanders, Clinton. Customizing the Body: The Art and Culture of
Tattooing. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989.
Schneider, Karen, and Sue Carswell. “Agony of the Feet.” People,
August 3, 1992, pp. 55–56.
Schor, Naomi. “Female Fetishism: The Case of George Sand.” In The
Female Body in Western Culture: Contemporary Perspectives, ed. Susan
Rubin Suleiman. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1986.
Servin, James. “Chic or Cruel?” New York Times, November 1, 1992,
sec. 9, p. 10.
Shields, Jody. “Shoes for Scandal.” Vogue, March 1993, pp. 378,
427.
Simpson, David. Fetishism and Imagination: Dickens, Melville, Conrad.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982.
Smirno , Victor N. “The Fetishistic Transaction.” In Psychoanalysis
in France, ed. Serge Lebovici and Daniel Widlöcher. New York:
International Universities Press, 1980.
Snitnow, Ann, Christine Stansell, and Sharon Thompson, eds. Powers
of Desire: The Politics of Sexuality. New York: Monthly Review Press,
1983.
Solomon, Julie B. “Low-Cut Trend in Women’s Shoes Is Exposing
Toes to New Scrutiny.” Wall Street Journal, October 15, 1984, p. 35.
Squires, Judith, ed. “Perversity” [special issue], New Formations, no.
19 (1993).
Stanton, Domna C, ed. Discourses of Sexuality: From Aristotle to AIDS.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992.
Steele, Valerie. “Clothing and Sexuality.” In Men and Women:
Dressing the Pan, ed. Claudia Kidwell and Valerie Steele.
Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989.
–––. “Erotic Allure.” In The Idealizing Vision: The Art of Fashion
Photography, ed. Andrew Wilkes. New York: Aperture, 1991.
–––. Fashion and Eroticism: Ideals of Feminine Beauty from the
Victorian Era to the Jazz Age. New York: Oxford University Press,
1985.
–––. Women of Fashion: Twentieth-Century Designers. New York:
Rizzoli, 1991.
Stekel, Wilhelm. Sexual Aberrations: The Phenomenon of Fetishism in
Relation to Sex. 2 vols. Trans. Samuel Parker. New York: Liveright,
1971.
Stoller, Robert. “The Gender Disorders.” In Sexual Deviation, ed.
Ismond Rosen. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973.
–––. Observing the Erotic Imagination. New Haven, Conn.: Yale
University Press, 1985.
–––. Pain and Passion: A Psychoanalyst Explores the World of S&M.
New York: Plenum, 1991.
–––. Perversion: The Erotic Form of Hatred. New York: Pantheon
Books, 1975.
–––. Porn: Myths for the Twentieth Century. New Haven and London:
Yale University Press, 1991.
–––. Presentations of Gender. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University
Press, 1985.
–––. “Psychoanalysis and Physical Intervention in the Brain: The
Mind-Body Problem Again.” In Contemporary Sexual Behavior:
Critical Issues in the 1910s, ed. Joseph
Zubin and John Money. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1973.
–––. Sex and Gender: On the Development of Masculinity and
Femininity. New York: Science House, 1968.
–––. Sexual Excitement: Dynamics of Erotic Life. New York: Pantheon
Books, 1979.
–––. “Transvestism in Women.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 11
(1982): 99–116.
Symons, Donald. The Evolution of Human Sexuality. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1979.
Thompson, Mark, ed. Leatherfolk: Radical Sex, People, Politics, and
Practice. Boston: Alyson, 1991.
Thorne, Melvin Q. “Marital and LSD Therapy with a Transvestite
and His Wife,” Journal of Sex Research 3 (1967): 169–177.
Townsend, Larry. Leatherman’s Handbook. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Le
Salon, 1970, 1974, 1977.
Trasko, Mary. Heavenly Soles: Extraordinary Twentieth-Century Shoes.
New York: Abbeville Press, 1989.
Ullerstam, Lars. The Erotic Minorities. Trans. Anselm Hollo. New
York: Grove Press, 1966.
Vale, V., and Andrea Juno, eds. Modern Primitives. San Francisco:
Re/Search, 1989. Vance, Carole, ed. Pleasure and Danger: Exploring
Female Sexuality. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1984.
Wade, Carlson. Panty Raid and Other Stories of Transvestism and
Female Impersonation. New York: Selbee, 1963.
–––. “The Pleasures of Fur.” High Heels 3 (1962): 45–47.
Waites, Elizabeth A. “Fixing Women: Devaluation, Idealization, and
the Female Fetish.” Journal of the American Psychoanalytic
Association 30 (1982): 435–439.
Weeks, Je rey. Sexuality and Its Discontents: Meanings, Myths and
Modern Sexualities. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1985.
Wildman, R. W., et al. “Notes on Males’ and Females’ Preferences for
Opposite Sex Body Parts, Bust Sizes and Bust Revealing Clothing.”
Psychological Reports 13 (1976): 485–486.
Williams, Linda. Hard Core: Power, Pleasure, and the ‘Frenzy of the
Visible. “Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989.
Wilson, Elizabeth. Adorned in Dreams: Fashion and Modernity.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985.
Wilson, Glenn. The Great Sex Divide: A Study of Male-Female
Di erences. London: Peter Owen, 1989.
–––. The Secrets of Sexual Fantasy. London: Dent, 1978.
–––, ed. Variant Sexuality: Research and Theory. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1987.
Wise, Thomas N. “Fetishism—Etiology and Treatment: A Review
from Multiple Perspectives.” Comprehensive Psychiatry 26 (1985):
249–257.
Wood, Robert. “Fur Fetishism.” Sexology, February 1956, pp. 426–
431.
Woodhouse, Annie. Fantastic Women: Sex, Gender and Transvestism.
London: Macmillan, 1989.
Woodward, Tim, ed. The Best of Skin Two. London: Kasak Books,
1993.
Zavitzianos, George. “Fetishism and Exhibitionism in the Female
and Their Relationship to Psychopathy and Kleptomania.”
International Journal of Psychoanalysis 52 (1971): 297–305.
–––. “Homeovestism: Perverse Forms of Behavior Involving Wearing
Clothes of the Same Sex.” International Journal of Psychoanalysis 53
(1972): 471–477.
–––. “The Perversion of Fetishism in Women.” Psychoanalytic
Quarterly 51 (1982): 405–425.
Periodicals and Catalogues
Bizarre
Bizarre Bondage
Bizarre Life
Bizarre Shoes and Boots
Black Leather... In Color
Black Leather Times
Blue Blood
Body An
Body Play
Bondage Life
B. R. Corset Newsletter
Catalog of Fetish Catalogs
Custom Shoe Company
Ecstasy Lingerie
Englishwoman’s Domestic Magazine
Erolastica
Erotic Bondage
Fantasy Fashion Digest
Female Foot Fetishism
Female Impersonator News
Fetish
Fig Leaf
Foot Worship
Frederick’s of Hollywood
High Heel Honeys
High Heels
International Male
Latex and Leather
London Life
London Life League Newsletter [and] Corset Education Notes
Modern Society
Monique of Hollywood
Natural Rubber Company
Noir Leather
Nylon Jungle
O: Fetish, Fashion, Fantasies
Piercing Fans International Quarterly
Razor’s Edge
Repartee
Rubber News
Rubber Rebel
Skin Two
Society
Tapestry
Transformations
Transvestite
Velvet
Vogue
 Index
Ackerman, Diane, 195
Advocate, 186
AIDS, and fetish fashion, 193–195
Alaïa, Azzedine, 4, 33, 88–89
Amazon, 40, 105
American Psychiatric Association, 26
Amputees, 12, 19, 27, 102
Anal penetration: and rubber fetishism, 153
and shoe fetishism, 101, 171
“Anal penis,” 19
Anatomy and Destiny (Kern), 96
Anorexia, 187
Aprons: butchers’, 174
in fashion and fantasy, 173–174
as fetish objects, 26
leather, 153, 174
and maids’ uniforms, 172–174, 182
rubber, 153
Armani, Giorgio, 158
Arti cial limbs. See Prostheses, as fetishes
Atomage, 34, 55
Austria: and corset fantasies, 71–72, 74–76
fetish shoe from, 100–101
Avengers, The (television show), 34–35, 51
Baby pants, plastic or rubber, 148, 153
“Bad girls,” 43–45
Ballet slippers: and corsets, compared, 86
and fetish shoes, compared, 101
Baroness Varcra, 169
Baudelaire, Charles, 192
Baudrillard, Jean, 51
Becker, Ernest, 106–107
Belle Epoch, and lingerie, 117–119, 122, 138
Belts, leather, 156
Benjamin, Walter, 50
Bennett-England, Robert, 128
Biker look, 13, 154–157, 163, 191
for women, 179, 184
Binet, Alfred, 5, 11
Bizaire, 110
Bizaire Life, 34
Bizaire Shoes and Boots, 103
Biz-zarre Club, 54, 102, 148, 150
Black: in erotic dress, 49
as favored color for shoes, 108–109
stockings, 40, 111, 131–133, 141
symbolism of, 132, 190–192
velvet, 146
Black leather, 3, 108, 111, 126, 143, 154, 185, 192, 194
jacket, 88, 154–158, 176, 179, 184, 189
Black Leather... in Color, 192
Blahnik, Manolo, 113
Blue jeans, 128, 156. See also Levis, as fetish objects
Blue Velvet ( lm), 146
Body exposure: and eroticism, 194
taboos against, 129, 140
Body harness, leather, 156
Body modi cation, 21, 54, 159, 161
amputation as, 161
branding as, 161
and corsetry, 60, 63
Grangers and, 79–81
Musafar and, 61. See also Piercing, body
Body parts: and fashion, 188
and fetish equivalents, 106–107, 126
as fetishes, 12
Bondage, 33
and corsetry, 63
fantasy of, 126–127
and fashion, 37–38, 166
imagery of, 186
and rubber fetishism, 151
and shoes, 91, 98
Booted Master (novel), 104
Boot Licker (novel), 104
Boot-licking, 104–106, 171
Boot-Licking Slave (novel), 104
Boots, 4, 6, 25–26
army, 40–41, 104–105
combat, 113, 185; corset-laced, 113
cowboy, 104, 184
as dominatrix gear, 110, 169, 171
fetishistic, 101, 159
gladiator, 113; go-go, 131
kinky, 24, 33–34, 42
and leathersex, 176
and lesbians, 104
motorcycle, 176
riding, 38, 40, 106
in sadomasochistic scenarios, 172. See also Foot and shoe
fetishism
High heels
Boss, Medard, 106
Bottier of London, 51
Bound feet, and high heels, 91, 95–96, 98–99. See also Foot-
binding Brando, Marlon, 154
Brassieres, 12, 54, 77, 134–136, 138
cone, 135–137
and harem-girl look, 174
as status symbols in Third World, 138
and transvestism, 136
as outerwear, 88. See also Underwear
Breasts: as fetishes, 11–12, 134
 and male sexual arousal, 167–168
as phallic symbols, 134
as secondary sexual characteristics, 23
size of, 134
Broch, Hermann, 182
Brooks, Rosetta, 42
Brothels, 19, 48, 146, 172
Brubach, Holly, 113, 164
Bruce, Liza, 43
Buckles: as dominatrix gear, 172
symbolism of, 126
Bulemia, 46, 187
Bushnell, Candice, 143
Business suit, as power uniform, 182, 184–185
Bustier, 3, 138
Buttocks fetishism, 124
Cache-sexe, 3, 135, 174
Calabria, Thea, 113
Califa, Pat, 29, 50, 159, 171
Campbell, Naomi, 143, 161
Can-can, 97, 120
Candy pants, 122
Caped Crusadist, 166
Caps: leather, 156; maids’, 182
nurses’, 182
Castration: and Bobbit case, 17
 complex, 18
as fantasy, 146
imagery of, and shoe fetishism, 104
Castration anxiety, 15–58, 168, 201n.28
and foot-binding, 95
Cathie J., 83–86
Catsuit, 34–35
rubber, 190
Catwoman, 34, 164, 190
Chanel, 89, 113, 143
Chanel, Coco, 192
Chaps, leather, 176, 178
Chasseguet-Smirgel, Janine, 18–19, 193
Chemise, 138
Chi on, 157, 185; “cult of,” 117
China: Neo-Confucianism in, 95
subordination of women in, 95–96. See also Foot-binding
Chopine (Venetian platform shoe), 98–99
Christine, Lily “Cat Girl,” 119, 138
Cinderella, 91
Clerambault, Gaetan, 148
Clothing: eroticism of, 46–47
fetishes of, generalized, 6, 8, 26. See also Fashion; Fetishism
Cockroaches, as fetish objects, 26
Color symbolism, in fetish fashion, 153, 190–192. See also Black;
Red, symbolism of
Commodity fetishism, 5–6, 50–51
Condoms: equated with gloves, 134
and rubber fetishism, 152–153
Constriction fetish, 19, 28, 106, 126
and rubber fetishism, 151, 153
and shoe fetishism, 102
Corbin, Alain, 47, 49
Correct Sadist, The (Sellers), 132
Corselette, 89
Corsetry: correspondence on, 59, 65–72, 74–77
and cross-dressing, 60, 63, 72
and dominatrix gear, 169, 172
fetishism of, 4, 6, 9, 15, 19, 56, 59–81, 106, 206n.6
and foot-binding, compared, 94
medical aspects of, 58, 72, 83
and rubber fetishism, 151, 169
and sadomasochism, 59, 63–66 (see also Tight-lacing)
and underwear fetishism, 118
Corsetry, contemporary: in fashion, 4, 6, 57, 86, 88–89
and “Fetish Drag” look, 189
three types of wearers of, 61–63
and tight-lacing, 81–86
Corsets: custom-made, for fetishists, 51, 58, 81
disappearance of, from mainstream fashion, early twentieth
century, 6, 76–77
early history of, 206n.6
 and exaggeration of female shape, 23
as fetish objects, 15, 56, 106; leather-lined, 154
as phallic symbols, 169
rubber, 169
size of, 53–54, 58–61, 63, 75, 77, 81–86, 207n.l4
as outerwear, 76, 86, 88–89 (see also Underwear: as outerwear)
Corsets, for men: 53–54, 58, 65, 71–76, 81–83; in America, 74–75
extant examples of, in museum collections, 76
military, 74–75
in Victorian fashion, 19, 58–60
Cosmopolite, 54, 147
Cowboy, imagery of, 184. See also Fantasy costume: cowboy
Cowie, Elizabeth, 167
Creativity, and perversion, 108
Crime, and fetishism, 30, 49. See also Theft
Cripples, and foot and shoe fetishism, 102
Cross-dressing: and corsetry, 60, 65, 72, 76
as distinguished from transvestism, 46
fantasies of, 60
and gender stereotypes, 189
and high heels, 100
and panties, 120
and prostitution, 48
schools for, 69–70
and tight-lacing, 100. See also Transvestism Crush fantasy, 26,
101–102. See also Squish fantasy
CyberPunks, 55
Cybersex, 193
Davis, Fred, 197
Denial of Death, The (Becker), 106
Deviance, charisma of, 193
DeVille, Alexis, 63
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), 26–28
Diana Slip Company, 121, 122
Diapers, 128; fur, 146
Dior, Christian, 54; House of, 141
Discipline scenarios: and boots, 104–106
and high heels, 101–102, 104
and tight-lacing, 63–72, 74
Discourse, on fetishism, 5–6, 8–9, 50
Dolce & Gabbana, 4, 116
Domination and aggression, male, 24
Dominatrix, 38, 40, 61, 63, 169–170
and boots, 171
and corsets, 63, 169, 172
in fantasy scenarios, 157, 163–164, 166, 169
and high heels, 109–110
“look” of, in fashion, 43, 164, 166, 169, 184
and shoe fetishism, 101–102
and tight-lacing, 63–72, 74
and underwear fetishism, 119
Dress Optional (Bennett-England), 128
DSM. See Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
DuCann, Charlotte, 138
Eating disorders, 46, 187
Economist, 123
EDM. See Englishwomen ‘s Domestic Magazine
Eighteenth century: and early history of fetishism, 48
and origins of shoe fetishism, 97–98
Elizabeth of Austria, 69
Elle, 42
Ellis, Havelock, 49, 53, 102
Englishwoman’s Domestic Magazine, 59–60, 65, 72, 81, 98–99, 105
“Enthusiast,” as euphemism for “fetishist”, 4–5, 57
Erotic appeal of the forbidden, 195–197
Eroticism, and clothing, 46–47, 185–186, 192–197
elaborate, in nineteenth century, 47–48
Exhibitionism, 27, 46
“Exotic,” as code for “fetishistic,” 111
Faludi, Susan, 58–59, 70, 166–167, 185
Family Doctor, 59, 68, 70, 72, 74, 159
Fantastic Wvmen (Woodhouse), 189
Fantasy: of being ridden, 40
of domination by women, 72, 74
fetishistic, 65
fetishistic, and gender stereotyping, 101
free from reality testing, 163
“normal,” 197
 perverse qualities of, 167
of punishment, 68, 108, 169–171
sexual, role of, 30
and sexual arousal, 24, 168
and tight-lacing, 68–77
and women’s liberation, 185. See also Masturbation
Whipping Fantasy costume: amazon, 163
biker, 13, 163, 174, 176, 177, 179
boy-girl, 163
bride, 48
cowboy, 104, 156, 163, 174, 176, 178, 179, 184
dominatrix, 163, 169 (see also Dominatrix)
harem girl, 13, 48, 163, 174–175
maid, 48, 163, 172–174, 180
military, 75, 156; nun, 48–49, 172
nurse, 13, 15, 24, 163, 182–183
policeman, 174, 176, 180
sailor, 180
schoolgirl, 24, 48, 172
uniforms, 163, 174, 176, 180
Fantasy costumes: commercially produced, 4, 51, 53, 55, 81, 149,
163, 172, 180
leather, 176
and leathersex, 156
and prostitution, 48–49
and social life of fetishists, 3–4
 and transvestism, 75
Fashion: erotic aspects of, 47, 188
and fetishism, 4, 6, 8–9, 33–37, 42, 54–55, 153, 179
fetishistic themes in, 179, 188–197
and leather, 157–158
and lingerie, 115
New Look, 54
photography, 38–39, 42
theatricality of, 194
uniform look in, 181. See also Punk
Underwear: as outerwear Fashion and Eroticism (Steele), 3, 4, 59
Fashion and Fetishism (Kunzle), 27.
See also Kunzle, David Fashioning the Bourgeoisie (Perrot), 96
Fath, Jacques, 88
Feet: associated with penis, 107
naked, as repulsive, 106–107
small, 91–96, 99. See also Foot and shoe fetishism Female
Fetishism (Gamman and Makinen), 46, 51
Female fetishists: as contested issue, 6, 44, 46, 51
and fabric fetishism, 148
Freud on, 187
and leather fetishism, 157
rarity of, 14
and riding-boot fetishism, 106
and sexual liberation, 57
Feminists: attitudes of, toward fetishism, 44, 51
 attitudes of, toward underwear as outerwear, 139
breasts as an issue for, 134
and clothing issues, 184
sex radicals and, 189
Feminist theory: critique of fashion by, 42, 51, 57, 166, 185–186
and fetishism, 44
and human sexuality, 167
and pornography, 186–187
Feminizing the Fetish, 6
Fendi, 88
Ferragamo, Salvatore, 111
Fetish: as anthropological term, 5, 50
in religion, 5
as “a story masquerading as an object,” 168
as substitute for mother’s penis, 14–15, 17–18, 146
Fetish costume: commercially produced, 4, 51, 53, 55, 81, 149,
163, 172, 180
compulsive attention devoted to, 6, 163
co-opted by mainstream fashion, 54–55, 166, 179, 188–197
custom-made, 149, 156
di cult to obtain in past, 33, 51, 53, 81
in erotic scenarios, 169, 171 (see also Fantasy)
and “Fetish Drag,” 189
and sexual liberation, 189
varieties of, 163. See also Boots Corsetry; Dominatrix; Fantasy
costume Gloves; High heels; Leather; Panties; Rubber; Shoes;
 Tight-lacing; Underwear; Uniforms
Fetish objects: compulsive attention to details of, 6, 26, 102, 108,
125–126, 163
hairbrushes as, 26
handkerchiefs as, 26
“hard” and “soft,” 26
combined as costumes, 163
prostheses as, 19, 26
safety pins as, 26
shiny, 106, 108–109, 111, 126, 147–148, 151–153, 190, 193
smell of, 102, 104, 108–109, 124, 143–144
types of, 26; visual appeal of, 23–24, 111
Fetishes, negative, 27
Fetishism: in anthropological discourse, 5, 50
in art, 6
in children, 18, 46
as commodity, 5–6, 50–51
“criminal” and “pathological” aspects of, 27, 49, 146–148
cultural discourse on, 5–6, 8–9; de ned, 4–6, 11, 26
degrees of, 11–12
and fashion (see Fashion); female (see Female fetishists);
history and evolution of, 20–22, 25, 64
“invention” of, 19
as liberated form of sexuality, 27, 188
in non-Western cultures, 21, 91–96, 123
and “normality,” 29
 as pejorative term, 4–5, 57
as predominately male phenomenon, 14, 71, 171
as psychological disorder, 27
public attitudes toward, 203n.61
and “sexism,” 41
as sexual perversion, 6
unfashionable, 76–81. See also Corsetry; Corsets; Foot and shoe
fetishism; Leather; Panties; Rubber; Sadomasochism; Tight-
lacing; Underwear Fetishist correspondence: and corsets, 51,
53, 59–60, 65–72
and shoes, 99–101
Fetishists: female (see Female fetishists); and old-fashioned
garments, 77, 121, 131–132
as predominately male, 14, 71, 171
preferences of, 202n.53
Fetishizing, as norm for males, 12, 13, 129
Fingernails, 126
Fitzgerald, F. Scott, 107
Foot and shoe fetishism, 6, 8–9, 13, 17, 21, 26, 30, 51, 55, 93, 96,
187
as commonest form of fetishism, 109
and constriction, 19, 102
and crush/squish fantasies, 26, 102, 112
and extreme high heels, 98–101, 171
feet and shoes as fetishistic unit in, 106
and fetishist correspondence, 99–101
 and foot-binding, compared, 92–96
and “foot worship,” 107, 113
Kra t-Ebing on, 108
and masochism, 102–104
and mutilation, 102; and numerology of foot size, 99
origins of, 96–98
and shoe/boot licking, 104–106, 145, 171
women’s fear of, 109–110. See also Boots; High heels; Shoes
Foot-binding, 21, 91–96
as cultural quasifetishism, 92–93
history and description of, 93–94
opposition to, 95
Foot Toiture (novel), 109
Foot Worship (novel), 109
Foucault, Michel, 19–20, 47, 57, 194
Foundation garments, 136. See also Brassieres; Corsets; Girdle
Frederick’s of Hollywood, 110–111, 122, 134
French mistress, and tight-lacing fantasies, 66–71
Freud, Sigmund: “A Child Is Being Beaten,” 169
feminist critique of, 44
on fetishism, 14–15, 17, 29, 50
on foot-binding, 95
on fur fetishism, 146
on perversion, 194
on punishment fantasies, 169, 171
on women, 187
Freudian theory, 18, 25
feminist critique of, 44
Friedan, Betty, 139
Frilly garments, 1 17–122, 138, 173–174
Fur,6, 17, 26, 143–146
fetishism, 144–146
odor of, 144
underwear, 122
Galliano, John, 4
Gamman, Lorraine, 46, 51
Garber, Marjorie, 188
Garter belt, 127, 131–132
and garters, 131
Gas mask, and rubber fetishism, 150, 173
Gatewood, Charles, 161
Gaultier, Jean-Paul, 4, 33, 88, 113, 136–137, 161, 190
Gays: clothing culture of, 127–128
erotica of, 128, 156–157
fantasy costumes of, 172, 174, 176–180, 182
liberation, and fashion, 184, 188. See also Homosexuals; Lesbians
Gender: politics of, 167–168, 171
roles, and clothing issues, 189
stereotypes of, 172
Geta (Japanese platform shoe), 98
Ghost, 141
Ginsberg, Allen, 49
Girdle, 77, 136, 138
Glass Slipper (Norment), 91, 92
Gloves, 26, 133–134
and dominatrix gear, 169
eroticism of, 133
fetishism of, 133, 154
leather, 154, 156
rubber, 133, 148
and shoes, compared, 102
tight, 102, 133
Godey’s Ladies’ Book, 133
“Golden lotus,” 92, 94–95
and 16-inch waist, compared, 94
Gosselin, Chris, 26
Granger, Ethel and Will, 79–81, 83
Greenacre, Phyllis, 18
Grumley, Michael, 157
Hair, 9, 11; pubic, 17, 123, 126
pubic, and fur, 146
Hamnett, Katherine, 185
Hanson, Dian, 109
Hard Corps (Grumley), 157
Hard Leather (novel), 156
“Harem cult,” and fetishism, 123
Harper’s Bazaar, 138, 166
Herrick, Robert, 46–47
High-Heeled & Dominant (novel), 109
High heels, 8, 12, 30, 54–55, 98–101, 109–113
and bound feet, 91, 95–96, 98–99
and cross-dressing, 100, 111
and dominatrix gear, 109–111, 169, 171–172
fetishistic, 98–101
for men, 136
and Phallic Woman, 184
stiletto, 113, 143, 166, 169, 185
widespread appeal of, 98, 109–113
High Heels, 8, 12, 33–34, 101, 111
Hirshfeld, Magnus, 119, 146, 180
Hochswender, Woody, 139
Hogg, Pam, 55
Hollander, Anne, 98
Homosexuality, and psychology of fetishism, 17, 19, 26
Homosexuals: and boot fetishism, 104–105
and fetish costumes, 172, 174, 176–180, 182
fetishizing of underwear by, 124, 127–129, 131
and leathersex, 154, 156–57. See also Lesbians
Hopkins, Juliet, 46
Hot pants, 166
Hutchison, Travis, 83
Infantilism, and rubber fetishism, 151, 153
Internet, fetishist correspondence on, 9, 107
Jacobs, Marc, 110, 184
Japan: cross-dressing in, 172
fetishism in, 123
modern fashion design in, 192
Jock strap, 128. See also Underwear: men’s Johnson, Betsey, 43,
45, 88, 166
Johnson, Virginia, 122
Jones, Allen, 184
Jones, Chuck, 8
Kaplan, Louise, 14–15, 168
Karan, Donna, 158
Katzjack, 193
Kawakubo, Rei, 192
Kendall, Diane, 120
Kern, Stephen, 96–97
Kinky Crowd, The (Brand), 151
Kinsey Institute, 176
Kitsis, Krystina, 55, 189–190
Klaw, Irving, 122, 136, 186–187
Klein, Calvin, 129, 179
Klein, William, 91
Kleptomania, 148
Knickers, annelette, 124. See also Underwear: underpants
Ko, Dorothy, 93
Koda, Harold, 88
Kolodny, Robert, 122
Kra t-Ebing, Richard von, 5, 11, 13, 28, 49, 65, 102, 108, 122,
144, 146–147
Kunzle, David, 27–28, 57, 70
Kutsche, Lynn, 58
Lacan, Jacques, 17, 50
Lacroix, Christian, 89
Ladies’ Home Journal, 8
Lagerfeld, Karl, 89, 157, 195
La Goulou, 118
Latex: barriers of, 194
bodysuits, 193
fetishism, 153
underwear, 122
Lauren, 86–87
Laver, James, 46, 55
Leather, 6, 9, 13, 24, 143, 160
black, 56, 108, 111, 126, 194
body harness, 156
chaps, 176, 178
and dominance, 148
and dominatrix look, 169–172, 174
and fashionable clothing, 34, 36, 39, 157–158, 166, 192
fetishism, 154–159
hot pants, 1661
jackets, 156, 176, 179 (see also Black leather: jacket;
Motorcycles); miniskirt, 169
 and Phallic Woman, 184
and rubber fetishism, 153, 159
and sadomasochism, 154, 156–157
symbolism of, 37, 159
“Leather dyke,” 157
Leatherfolk, 188
Leatherman: “look” of, 166
subculture of, 154, 156–157
Leatherman’s Handbook, The (Townsend), 154, 156, 174, 176
Leathersex, 13, 154–159, 166, 174, 176
Legs: and high heels, 111
as pathway to the genitals, 132
sexual appeal of, 96–97, 102
Leg Show, 101, 109
“Lesbian chic,” 186
Lesbians: and clothing issues, 184
and fashion, 42
and fetishism, 29
and leathersex, 157
and shoes and boots, 104–105
Levis, as fetish objects, 6, 46, 176
Life, 134
Lingerie, 12, 49, 88
fashions inspired by, 138–139
and Phallic Woman, 184
veils the genitals, 106
Lingerie Lounge, 115
London Life, 51, 53–54, 67, 69, 77, 100–102, 121, 146, 149–150,
159
London Life League, 57, 76
Lotus Club, 96
Lukàs, Georg, 50
Mackintosh fetishism, 46, 148–151
Mackintosh Society, 149
Madame Dowding’s Corsets, 73
Madame, Kayne, 53
Madame Sadi, 169
Madonna, 37, 88, 136
Magnuson, Ann, 98, 110, 112
Maid: fetishized, 13, 163, 172–174, 180
uniforms of, 48, 173, 182
Maîtresse ( lm), 157, 195
Make-up, 161
Makinen, Merja, 46, 51
Male gaze, 42
Mallarmé, Stéphane, 147
Maples, Maria, 8
Mapplethorpe, Robert, 159
Marcus, Steven, 47
Marcuse, Herbert, 195
Mark, Marky, 129
Marquit, Deborah, 141
Martin, Richard, 88
Marx, Karl 5, 50
Masks: in dominatrix gear, 169
in fetish costume, 190
in sadomasochistic fantasy, 172. See also Gas mask, and rubber
fetishism
Masochism. See Sadomasochism
Mason, Michael, 47
Master-slave fantasies, 174
master role in, 171–172
Masters, William, 122
Masturbation: and corsetry, 65
and cross-dressing, 46
and crush/squish fantasy, 26, 102, 112
and fabric fetishism, 121–122, 127
and foot and shoe fetishism, 97–98, 107–109
and fur fetishism, 146
and mirrors, 127, 163
Material fetishes, 6, 143–159
Matlock, Jann, 148
McClaren, Malcolm, 37
McClintock, Anne, 6
McDougall, Joyce, 28, 30
McDowell, Colin, 42, 158
Meaning and Content of Sexual Perversions, The (Boss), 106
Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 41
Meisel, Steven, 129
Menkes, Suzy, 192
“Merry widow,” 54
Miniskirt rape case, 186
Mirahella, 115
Mirror-sex, 127, 163. See also Masturbation
Miss Prim’s Reform Academy, 70
Miss Vera’s Finishing School for Boys Who Want to Be Girls, 70
Mistress Angel Stern, 61
Mistress Jacqueline, 169
Mitchell, Tony, 189
“Modern primitives,” 81, 161
Modem Society, 65, 69, 75
Money, John, 187
Monroe, Marilyn, 109, 119
Montana, Claude, 33, 38–39, 179
Montgomery Ward, 34, 36
Motorcycles: and black leather, 154, 156–157
and Hell’s Angels, 192
and leathersex, 174, 176, 179
and sexual imagery, 174, 176, 179, 193
Mower, Sarah, 42, 185
Mudd Club, 43, 45
Mugler, Thierry, 4, 88, 112, 141, 158, 179
Musafar, Fakir,60, 63, 81, 85
Nakedness: as less erotic than partial nudity, 119
 and powerlessness, 171
Nana (Zola), 147
National Geographic, 81
Natori, Josie, 138–139
Negative fetishes, 27
Neosexualities, 26, 30
Newton, Helmut, 38, 42–43, 102
New York Times, 49, 81, 161, 164
Nightgowns: “nighties,” 138
sexual associations of, 215n.76
1930s, 54; gay fetishism in, 128
1940s: bras in, 136
New Look and modi ed corsetry in, 54
1950s: bras in, 136
fetishistic elements in fashions of, 54
shoe styles of, 113
1960s, 35
blue jeans in, 128
and cultural radicalism, 40
shoe styles of, 113
1970s, 34, 36–37, 40–41
fashion issues in, 185
and leatherman look, 166
lingerie as outerwear in, 138
sexual culture of, 48
shoe styles of, 113
 tattooing and piercing in, 161
underwear in, 129
1980s, 41–43
erotic-underwear advertising in, 129
fashion issues in, 185
“fetishism back in fashion” in, 54–55
shoe styles of, 113
underwear in, 138 1990s
fashion in, 185
shoe styles of, 113
Nineteenth century: literature of fetishism in, 64
sexual attitudes of, 96
sexual culture of, 47–49. See also Victorian period
No-panty cafés, 122–123
“Normal”: fantasies, 197
fetishizing, 14, 118
foundations of fetishism, 49
as problematic term, 29
Norment, Camille, 91, 92
Normopaths, 30
Nurse: as fetish gure, 13, 15, 24, 163
as sex object, 182–183
O: Fashion, Fetish, Fantasies, 162, 190
Obseroing the Erotic Imagination (Stoller), 13
Odor. See Smell
O’Hara, Scarlett, 60
Orchamps, Baronne d’, 117
Other Victorians, The (Marcus), 47
Page, Betty, 110, 174–175
Pally, Marcia, 184
“Pampered in Panties” (column), 120
Panties, 120–122
crotchless, 122
edible, 122
equated with genitals, 126
fake-fur, 122, 141
rubber, 148, 153, 183
sexual appeal of, 125–126
used, as fetish objects, 122–123
Pantyhose, 131–132
“Panty Raid” (story), 102, 104, 125–127, 136, 192
Paraphilias, 24, 187
preponderance of, among males, 25
Paris, as locale of tight-lacing fantasies, 68–69, 77
Passion érotique des éto es chez la femme (Clérambault), 148
Patent leather, 111, 126, 154, 171
“Pathological erotic fetishism,” 11, 14
Pearl, 3, 60–61, 81–83, 86
Peel, Emma, 34–35, 51, 110
Penis: anal, 19
and condoms, 134
as distinguished from phallus, 17
 exposure of, taboo against, 129
fetishism, 131
and leathersex, 158–159
mother’s, 14–15, 17, 146
size of, 134
and whip symbolism, 171
“Penis corset,” 76
Penis envy, 19, 184
Penthouse, 128
Performance anxiety, male, 107
Perrot, Philippe, 96
Perversion, 14, 19, 22
and castration anxiety, 168
as characteristically human, 193
and creativity, 108
as fashion, 195
and fetishism, 44
in nineteenth century, 48
and pornography, 187
as problematic term, 30
and religious upbringing, 187
and sexual fantasy, 167
and sexual liberation, 189
as sexual rebellion, 196–197
“trickle-down,” 46, 48, 50
Pervert: “is always someone else,” 197; “perverts,” 30–31
 as sexual rebel, 194
“Pervs,” 55
Petticoats, 118–119, 148
Pfei er, Michelle, 164
Phallic symbolism, 17, 44, 168
and boots, 104
and corsets, 75
and dominatrix gear, 169
and shoes, 106, 113
and uniforms, 180
Phallic Woman, 14, 17, 168
and boots, 105
clothing and, 184
and cowgirl imagery, 179
dominatrix as, 174
and fashion issues, 185
Photo Bits, 69, 76–78, 100
Pied de Fanchette, Le (Restif), 97
Piercing, body: and fashion, 9
Grangers and, 79
jewelry for, 4
in nineteenth century, 54, 69, 71
of nipples, 69, 159
and nose rings, 161
Platform shoes, 98–99, 113
Playboy, 167
Pleasure Principle, 163
Plummer, Ken, 189
Poiret, Paul, 76
Polaire, 77
Polhemus, Ted, 55
Polyvinyl chloride. See PVC
Pornography, 5–6, 8, 12, 20–21, 40
of bondage, 186
and clothing symbolism, 172
and fantasy, 168
“female” narratives of, written by men, 71
feminist attitudes toward, 186–187
and fetishism, 200n. l0
and foot and shoe fetishism, 101–102, 109
gay, and cowboy imagery, 176
gay, and leathersex, 157
gay, and motorcycle imagery, 176
gay, and uniform imagery, 180
and high heels, 113
masks in, 169
in nineteenth century, 21, 47, 69
and nurse imagery, 182–183
sadomasochistic, 12, 40, 172, 182
and sexual liberation/censorship debate, 41–42
stereotyped imagery in, 69, 164
transvestite, 12, 102, 125, 172
 and underwear, 124
videos of, 106, 171
“Pornography and Fantasy” (Cowie), 167
“Pornography and Perversion” (Stoller), 125
Power: dressing, 43; symbolism, of clothing, 169–172, 182–185
Preston, John, 157
Primitives (Gatewood), 161
Pritchard, Mrs. Eric, 117
Prostheses, as fetishes, 19, 26
Prostitutes, 38
as dominatrixes, 169, 171
and fantasy costumes, 172–173
and foot and shoe fetishism, 109–110
and high heels, 111, 113
and lingerie, 119–120
“shoes,” 113
Prussia: corset-wearing by military o cers in, 74–75
and military imagery, 182
Psychopathia Sexualis (Kra t-Ebing), 28, 108
Pubic hair, 17, 123, 126
and fur, 146
Punishment: fantasies of, 171
gear, leather, 156
gloves, 133
and rubber fetishism, 151
and shoe fetishism, 102–104. See also Whipping
Punks, 37, 55
and body modi cation, 161
and brassieres, 136, 138
and fashion, 43, 192
and leather, 157
underwear as outerwear in style of, 136, 138
PVC, 143, 151–152
Quant, Mary, 113, 153
Qui Étes-Vous, Polly Maggoo ( lm), 91
Raincoats, 26, 148–149, 153. See also Mackintosh fetishism Reality
Principle, 163
Red, symbolism of, 190, 192–193
Repartee, 120, 172
Restif de La Bretonne, 97–98
Richmond, John, 4
Riding: boots, 106
crop, 169
fantasy of being ridden, 164–165
tack, and fetishistic imagery, 40
Rock and roll, 34
Roman sexual practices, 20–21, 134
Rossi, William, 94
Rubber: aprons, 153
baby pants, 148
black, 190
catsuit, 190
 and dominatrix look, 174
dresses, 142–143
in fashion, 55, 143
fetishism, 29, 55, 148–154
fetishism, and leather, 6, 153, 159
fetishism, and sadomasochism, 148, 151, 173
fetishism, and underwear, 121–122
full-body suit, 3; gloves, 133
jewelry, 153
nurse costume of, 183
panties, 126
and Phallic Woman, 184
and plastic, 152–153
as simulated skin, 153, 190
as slang for “condom,” 152
spandex, black, 166
stockings, 132
underwear, 128. See also Latex; Leather
Rubber News, 151
Sacher-Masoch, Leopold von, 5, 144
Sade, Marquis de, 5
Sadomasochism: and biker imagery, 179
and boots, 110
and dominatrix scenarios, 169, 171
and “Fetish Drag” look, 189
and foot and shoe fetishism, 102–104
 and gay fetish costumes, 176
imagery of, in fashion, 33, 37, 42, 164, 166, 192, 194
and leathersex, 154, 156–157, 176
and nurse fantasies, 183
and pornography, 12, 40, 172, 182
power relationships in, 171–172, 182
and prostitution, 49, 169, 171
and punk fashion, 37–38
and rubber fetishism, 151, 153
and sexual liberation, 188
and tattooing and piercing, 159, 161
and tight-lacing, 58–60, 63–64
and underwear fetishism, 124
Saenz, Mike, 193
Safe sex, 193
Sailor, as gay icon, 180
Saint Laurent, Yves, 113, 157
Saks Fifth Avenue, 89
Sambia people (New Guinea), 21, 134
Satin, 125–126, 138, 143
fetishism, 147–148
Schoolgirl uniforms, 24, 48
Schor, Naomi, 44
Scientia sexual is, 19
Scopophilia. See Voyeurism
“Second skin,” 153, 169, 193
Seductions of Crime (Katz), 193
Self, 8
Sellers, Terence, 132
Sex and the Liberated Man (Ellis), 41
“Sex appeal of the commodity,” 50, 52
“Sexism,” and fetishism, 41
Sexology, 40
Sexual: arousal, and fantasy, 168
arousal, human patterns of, 23
attractiveness, attributes of, 23, 111
characteristics, secondary, 23
fantasy, 24, 30, 168
fantasy, perverse qualities of, 167
identity, evolution of, 22
power, and clothing, 185–186
violence, and fetishism, 30
“Sexual chic,” 195
Sexuality: of male, 24
as socially constructed, 167–168
theories of, 19
“Sexual liberation” movement, 33, 41, 57, 189
Sex workers, 63, 171. See also Dominatrix; Prostitutes
Sexy dressing, and women’s liberation, 139–140
Shiny materials: and fetishism, 106, 108–109, 111, 126, 147–148,
151–153, 190, 193
and sexual arousal, 25–26
Shoes: ankle straps of, 111
and bondage, 91
for bound feet, 93–94, 96
and constriction fetish, 102
“cruel,” 9, 110
fake leather, 112
fashionable, 4, 6, 90, 113
fetish, 4, 13, 51, 55, 101, 171
fetish correspondence on, 99–101
ats, 111
“fuck me,” 110
“naked,” 110
open-toed, 102, 110
platform, 98–99, 113
sandals, 110–111
and sexual arousal, 24, 30
shoe or boot licking, 104–106, 171
sneakers, 104, 110
as symbols of genitals, 106
as symbols of sexual pleasure, 168
theft of, 8, 97–98
as weapons and wounds, 101–104. See also Boots; Foot and shoe
fetishism; High heels
Silk, 6, 47, 126–127, 147
Silverman, Kaja, 186, 193
“Sissy maids,” 153, 172
16-inch waist, 58–61
Skin: as erogenous zone, 133, 193
fantasies of, 188
and fetishism, 157, 159, 161
and rubber, 153, 190
Skin Tvo, 4, 56, 90, 189
Skin Two (boutique), 150
Slashing, of fabrics, 26, 147–148
Slave role, in sadomasochistic fantasy, 63, 171–172
“Slaves of the Stay-Lace” (letters), 75
Slip, 138
Slip dress, 138
SM (S&M, S/M). See Sadomasochism “Smellies” and “touchies,”
124
Smelly things: and fetishism, 102, 104, 108–109, 124
materials, 143–144
and sexual arousal, 25
Snails, as fetish objects, 26, 102
Society, 73, 76, 118, 159
Sociobiology, 22–24
Soft fabrics, as “feminine,” 143, 174
Sound, of fetish materials, 149
Spurs, 105
Squish fantasy, 102, 112
Stade, George, 30–31
Stays, 54, 75. See also Corsets Stekel, Wilhelm, 65, 123, 132
Stiletto heels, 113, 143, 166, 169, 185. See also High heels
Stockings, 24, 26, 97, 126, 189; black, 40, 111, 131–133, 141
erotic appeal of, 132
and fabric fetishism, 131–132
rubber, 132
Stoller, Robert, 12–14, 18, 41, 46, 119, 125–127, 153, 168
Storey, Helen, 42
Strangling fantasy, 102
Striptease, 119, 133, 138, 140
“Subjugated in Rubber” (comic strip), 132
Sui, Anna, 4
Sutcli e, John, 34, 55
Taboos, on body exposure, 129, 140
Tatler, 77
Tattoos, 4, 9, 159, 161
Terrorist chic, 38
Theft: of furs, 146
of petticoats, 118–119
of shoes, 8, 97–98
of underwear, 122–123, 125
13-inch waist, Ethel Granger and, 79–81
Thomass, Chantal, 88
Three-Inch Golden Lotus, The (Feng), 95
Tight-lacing, 53–54, 58–87
abroad, fantasies of, 68–72, 74–76
at “boarding schools,” 66–72
 contemporary, 81–86
and cross-dressing, 75, 100
and discipline scenarios, 64–72, 74
fantasy scenarios of, 77
fetishistic, characteristics of, 58
fetishistic correspondence about, 66–71, 75–77
and gloves, 133
and high heels, 100. See also Corsetry; Corsetry, contemporary;
Corsets; Corsets, for men
Toe cleavage, 110
Toenails: and foot fetishism, 93
red, 102
Tom of Finland, 105, 177, 182
Torture Garden, 3, 4, 9, 70
Townsend, Larry, 156, 174, 176, 182
Tramar, Comtesse de, 117
Trampling: and domination, 29; fantasy of, 102
Transvestism, 12, 25, 27
and boots, 105
and brassieres, 136
and corsetry, 63, 65
and dominatrix scenarios, 171
and fabric fetishism, 148
fantasies of, 75
and fantasy costume, 174–176
and foot and shoe fetishism, 110
 and gender stereotypes, 189
and high heels, 111
and pornography, 102, 172–173
psychological etiology of, 127, 208n.52
as relatively rare among women, 46
and sexual liberation, 188
subversion of gender roles in, 188–189
and tight-lacing, 58
and underwear fetishism, 120–122, 125–127. See also Cross-
dressing
Transvestites: in China, 94
clothing preferences of, 215n.76
as “sissy maids,” 172–173
Trasko, Mary, 100
T-shirts, 128, 161, 179
Tucker, Scott, 188
Turlington, Christie, 161
“Undercover News” (story), 122, 134, 148
Underwear, 4, 6, 17, 24, 26
bikini briefs, for men, 128–129
boxer shorts, 126–128
erotic appeal of, 96–97, 115, 117–119
fetishism, 114, 122–124
fetishism, tactile and olfactory stimuli of, 124
history of, 116–122
as “intimate body fashions,” 138
 men’s, 124, 127–131
as outerwear, 4, 86, 88–89, 115–116, 136, 138, 140
rubber, 128; theft of, 122, 125
underpants, as rst worn by prostitutes, 120. See also Panties
Ungaro, Emanuel, 89
Uniform look, in fashion, 181
Uniforms, 4, 6, 13, 15, 26, 48; in fashion, 181
and fetishism, 69, 75, 176, 180–183
of maid, 48, 163, 172–174
military, 75, 156, 180
of nurse, 13, 15, 24, 163, 182–183
of police, 174, 176, 180
and power stereotypes, 182–183
of schoolgirl, 24, 28, 172
in sadomasochistic fantasy, 173
Uzanne, Octave, 117
Valentino, 89
“Vandalized love map,” 187
Veblen, Thorstein, 50
Veiled Woman, 174, 185
Velvet, 144, 146, 169
Venus in Furs (Sacher-Masoch), 5, 144
Versace, Gianni, 4, 33, 113, 140, 164, 166–167, 184–185, 189
Vested Interests (Garber), 188
Victorian period: corsetry in, 58, 64–65, 77
morality of, nostalgia for, 195
 sexuality in, 96
Vienna, as locale of tight-lacing fantasies, 68, 71- 72, 75–76
Vie Parisienne, La, 132
Vogue, 33, 38–40, 57, 86, 143, 167, 185
Voyeurism, 27, 120, 123–124, 144
Waist measurements, 54, 58–61, 64–71, 74, 77, 79–87, 207n.l4
world’s smallest, 79–81
Wall Street Journal, 110
Wasp waist, 8, 68, 77
“Waspy” girdle, 54, 81
Weber, Bruce, 129
Westwood, Vivienne, 4, 37, 86, 113, 138, 141, 166
Wet look, 152–153, 171, 193
“Whip girl,” 170
Whipping, 12, 29, 66
fantasy scenarios of, 68, 108, 169–171
as fetish, 26
and fur, 144
and sadomasochism, 29, 71
Whips and Kisses (Jacqueline), 169
White skin, and black fabric, 132
Wild Ones, The ( lm), 154
Williams, Linda, 5
Williamson, Judith, 51
Wilson, Colin, 22
Wilson, Elizabeth, 166, 184
Wilson, Glenn, 24
Wives, of fetishists, 8, 41, 79–81, 83–85, 93, 109, 171
Wolf, Naomi, 185, 187
“Woman or Super-Woman” (photo series), 38–39
Women, as clothes fetishists, 187
Women’s Wear Daily, 129
Woodhouse, Annie, 189
Zola, Emile, 117, 147