[Scikick]

I have a question about so called fetishes. Mainly dealing with fictional and real people.

I surf the net all the time and I found something about fanboys and girls having a love obsession with fictional characters. It amazes me how they act in such a way.

One person who caught my attention is a France Citizen named Alix Henriol. She claims herself as Sonic the Hedgehog, Sega's mascot's wife. She does not seem to be aware that Sonic isn't real. Yet, she said she had sex with Sonic, and this made her famous worldwide for many other robophiles; who think she is a GOD.

Here is a link about her Sonic dedicated website, Sonic Passion (Warning; this is not going to be pretty!)

http://www.sonic-onl...m/sonicpassion/

And her webpage,

http://www.alix-henriol.com/menu.htm

Any comments, opinions, interpretations or other kinds of replies are welcome.

[Phi for All]

I'm not so sure we should increase traffic to such a site.

Can you tell us what you're after here, in terms of Psychology? Are you interested in the psychology of fetishes in general or mostly just about robophilia?

[Scikick]

Both...

I would like some interpretation on this from anyone.

[UncleIrv]

This is clearly an offshoot of "furryism," which is a fetish where people are sexually attracted to "stuffed animals" aka "plushies," or they autophilically identify as BEING a stuffed animal themselves.

Notice that these cartoon characters are drawn in a similar style as many toy animal characters are fashioned. This "robophilia" seems to be a relatively new variation of the old furry fetish. I think this could be explained by the fact that video games are a recent development, and only lately are a generation of kids reaching puberty who are of an age where they may have been exposed to video games at a very young age and "sexually imprinted" upon the characters. These are probably kids who began with a core fixation on stuffed toys.

Why sexual attraction to stuffed toys? Well, you need to begin by realizing that all fetishes derive from infancy, and are most likely "seeded" because of a persistent fixation on a "transitional object," an object which represents the mother when she is absent, soothing the baby's seperation trauma. The "euphoric" experience of the baby to the object can become deeply imprinted as a "lovemap" which often becomes fully sexualized at puberty.

These people are often very unhappy and self-destructive...although they would swear otherwise! The euphoria they derive from their compulsive sexual behavior is so powerful that they tend to deny all negative consequences, kind of like a crackhead who doesn't seem to even notice the destruction of his own life. As the fetish consumes their personality, it becomes the sole reason for existence.

This is just a theory, but I believe you will see an EXPLOSION of fetishes like this as a consequence of modern parenting techniques where more and more parents just put their babies in daycare at younger and younger ages, never allowing a healthy attachment to develop. Several researchers have found evidence of this but have tended to BURY the results because the information is not "politically correct" and most working mothers do not want to hear it.

[Mag]

UncleIrv said:

This is clearly an offshoot of "furryism,"

I agree

UncleIrv said:

Why sexual attraction to stuffed toys? Well, you need to begin by realizing that all fetishes derive from infancy, and are most likely "seeded" because of a persistent fixation on a "transitional object," an object which represents the mother when she is absent, soothing the baby's seperation trauma. The "euphoric" experience of the baby to the object can become deeply imprinted as a "lovemap" which often becomes fully sexualized at puberty.

This is a Freudian outlook on it - which I believe is incorrect.

UncleIrv said:

These people are often very unhappy and self-destructive...although they would swear otherwise! The euphoria they derive from their compulsive sexual behavior is so powerful that they tend to deny all negative consequences, kind of like a crackhead who doesn't seem to even notice the destruction of his own life. As the fetish consumes their personality, it becomes the sole reason for existence.

hardly. People with a fetish, any kind, are very variable in their control over it. To say they're all unhappy and self-destructive is stupid.
Then again, this is your first post, and we'll see if you ever come back.

[Fievel Mousekewitz]

Mag, on 20 July 2008 - 06:16 AM, said:

I agree


Ahm,, yeah.. Of course.



This is a Freudian outlook on it - which I believe is incorrect.
(??) I guess I agree though.


hardly. People with a fetish, any kind, are very variable in their control over it. To say they're all unhappy and self-destructive is stupid.
Then again, this is your first post, and we'll see if you ever come back.

My Name.
I have three of them. I agree with the above.
Just because I love Fievel so much,, doesn't really make me unhappy.
This Economy maybe.. I thought Obama was suppose to bail us out?
I want a job,, so I can get more plushies. But it doesn't make me sad,
not being able to buy more. I'd like more,, but for now,, it's just sorta
tough.


Anyways,, this thread just happened to catch my eye,, so here's my two cents..



Fieve.. ;-)

[Moontanman]

And then there are .... the Tentacles

This post has been edited by Moontanman: 20 July 2010 - 04:54 AM

[PhDwannabe]

Quote

This is just a theory, but I believe you will see an EXPLOSION of fetishes like this as a consequence of modern parenting techniques where more and more parents just put their babies in daycare at younger and younger ages, never allowing a healthy attachment to develop. Several researchers have found evidence of this but have tended to BURY the results because the information is not "politically correct" and most working mothers do not want to hear it.

Man, I don't want to be a troll, but... you hear this kind of dreck from people who aren't actually familiar with peer-reviewed literature on a topic. There has been a robust debate on the potential effects of childcare for decades. Some researchers have found a few negative outcomes; some have found positive ones; most seem to find very few, small effects. The evolving consensus is that quality childcare isn't really going to do much harm. Children tend to be a little more resilient than they are given credit for, and can adapt to weirder situations than we can often imagine. An attentive, stimulating childcare environment can even render kids better off than they'd have been otherwise. As you might think, however, "too much" and "too early" are less optimal. But of course there's a debate, particularly about the effects on early attachment. To wit:

"For at least 50 years, nursery schools and preschools have been viewed by parents and educators as a means to promote social and academic skills prior to entry to formal schooling (Lamb & Ahnert, 2006). In contrast, others, influenced in part by attachment theory, have expressed concerns that extensive nonmaternal care, especially beginning very early in life, could disrupt attachment bonds and result in problem behaviors (Belsky, 1986, 1988; Egeland & Hiester, 1995). Research findings provide support for both views. Experimental studies of high-quality early intervention programs have demonstrated that these programs can enhance social, cognitive, and academic development of economically disadvantaged children (Campbell, Pungello, Miller-Johnson, Burchinal, & Ramey, 2001; Love et al., 2005; Reynolds, 2000; Schweinhart, Weikart, & Larner, 1986). Correlational studies of economically and ethnically diverse samples also have fairly consistently found higher quality child care to be associated with better cognitive and academic outcomes (Broberg, Wessels, Lamb, & Hwang, 1997; Burchinal et al., 2000; Cote et al., 2007; Gormley, Gayer, Phillips, & Dawson, 2005; Mashburn et al., 2008; Peisner-Feinberg & Burchinal, 1997). Evidence of social benefits of child care has been more mixed. [...] other researchers have identified potentially adverse consequences of long hours of care, especially, though not exclusively, if initiated early in life (Bates et al., 1994; Belsky, 2001; Cote, Borge, Geoffroy, Rutter, & Tremblay, 2008; Haskins, 1985; Loeb, Bridges, Bassok, Fuller, & Rumberger, 2007; Nomaguchi, 2006; Vandell & Corasaniti, 1990). Time in center-type settings has been related to negative social behavioral outcomes but also positive academic outcomes (Huston et al., 2001; Loeb et al., 2007; Magnuson, Ruhm, & Waldfogel, 2007). Efforts to understand and integrate these disparate findings has led to a conceptualization of child care that differentiates quality of care, quantity of care, and types of care as potentially distinct influences on children’s development" (Vandell et al., 2010).

Does that look like people are burying stuff to you? Me neither. Social scientists are characteristically OK with saying some pretty controversial stuff. Don't believe any sort of this argumentum ad ignorantiam: "you don't find a lot of people publishing research which links autism to evil fairies, which means it's being SUPPRESSED!" It's generally meant as support for a hokey idea that has either been discarded already or is too off-the-wall to seem worth studying. Early childcare leading to an explosion of fetishism, for instance.



References:

Vandell, D. L., Belsky, J., Burchinal, M., Steinburg, L., Vandergrift, N., NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2010). Do effects of early child care extend to age 15 years? Results from the NICHD study of early child care and youth development. Child Development, 81, 737-756.

[skwiff]

UncleIrv, on 18 July 2008 - 06:51 AM, said:

This is clearly an offshoot of "furryism," which is a fetish where people are sexually attracted to "stuffed animals" aka "plushies," or they autophilically identify as BEING a stuffed animal themselves.

i sorry but im going to have to correct you there. being a furry is not a sexaul attraction to stuffed animals. that is plushophilia and it is often a miscomception with furries. dont bother questioning how i know this, i will only say i know some strange people...