Agastopia (pronounced agg-uh-stow-pee-ah)
Deriving visual enjoyment from the appearance of a specific body part or parts (some suggesting the attraction must be fetishistic to cross the threshold from admiration to syndrome).
2011: A creation of etymologists Peter Novobatzky & Ammon Shea who included it in their 1999 book Depraved English (sub-titled: "The most disgusting and hilarious word book ever" which may be hyperbolic but certainly captured their intentions). While the book may not have been exhaustive, there was an entry for maschalephidrosis (runaway armpit perspiration), the construct being the Ancient Greek μασχάλη (maskhálē) (armpit) + hidrosis, from the New Latin hidrōsis, from the Ancient Greek ἱδρώς (hidrṓs) (sweat) + -sis (the suffix in medicine used to form nouns of condition) so there were certainly highlights. The construct of agastopia was the Ancient Greek ἀγα- (aga(s)-) (very) + -topia (a back-formation extracted from utopia (and other words) ultimately deriving from the Ancient Greek τόπος (tópos) (place). Utopia was from the New Latin Ūtopia, the name of a fictional island possessing a seemingly perfect socio-politico-legal system in the 1516 book Utopia by Sir Thomas More (1478–1535). The construct was the Ancient Greek οὐ (ou) (not) + τόπος (tópos) (place, region) + -ία (-ía) (the New Latin suffix, from the Latin -ia and the Ancient Greek -ία (-ía) & -εια (-eia) which formed abstract nouns of feminine gender. More’s irony in calling a world in which everything and everyone works in perfect harmony being best translated as “not a real place” is often lost in modern use. Agastopic is a noun & adjective, agastopia is a noun, and agastopically is an adverb; the noun plural is agastopias.
Agastopic: Lindsay Lohan's feet.
Although there had not previously been a generic descriptor of part-focused voyeuristic fetishism, there’s no suggestion Novobatzky thought agastopia a serious contribution to the taxonomy of mental health but some have adopted it, fleshing out the definitional range. It’s been suggested the condition manifests as (1) a love or admiration of one’s own body part, compelling either a fondness of performing a particular task with it or a preference to cover and shield it with a protective layer or (2) the more familiar admiration of another’s body part(s). Some sources, without citation, note it’s “…believed to be a rare condition” and one for which there’s “… no cure.” Despite these nudges, when the fifth edition of the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders was published in 2013 (DSM-5), there was no specific mention of agastopia and this was maintained when the revised version (DSM-5-TR) was released in 2022. Still, for clinicians who find it a convenient medical shorthand, presumably, a patient found to be "fond of certain body part" without fetishizing it (or them) would be found to be "agastopish" and because fetishes seem inherently spectrum conditions, the comparative would be "more agastopic" & the superlative "most agastopic".
The notion
agastopia is “believed to be a rare condition” must be based on the published
statistics but they reflect (1) the profession no longer regarding it as a diagnosable
condition unless certain criteria were fulfilled and (2) the general consensus
most instances of agastopia are never reported.
Impressionistically, real-world experience would take note of industry having
long recognized the prevalence in at least a (male) subset of the population at
a level necessary to justify the investment necessary to supply the
demand. In the days when two of the most
significant vectors for the distribution of pornography were glossy magazines
and various digital media (tapes and optical discs), both forms provided some content
devoted exclusively to one body part or another, the protocol carried over to the
internet when websites became the default mode.
Among the pornography aggregation sites, it’s not unusual for the usual
suspect body parts to be listed as categories for consumers with a particular
agastopic focus.
So
agastopia is a thing which exists at a commercially critical mass. ‘Twas ever thus perhaps but what has in recent
decades changed is the attitude of the mental health community. Before the release of DSM-III-R (1987),
fetishism was usually described as a persistent preferential sexual arousal in
association with non-living objects or an over-inclusive focus on (typically
non-sexualized) body parts (most famously feet) and body secretions. With the DSM-III-R, the concept of partialism
(an exclusive focus on part of the body) was separated from the historic
category of fetishism and appended to the “Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified”
category. Although one of the dustier
corners of psychiatry, the field had always fascinated some and in the years
since the DSM-III-R was published, a literature did emerge, most critics
maintaining partialism and fetishism are related, can be co-associated, and are
non-exclusive domains of sexual behavior.
There was a technical basis for this position because introduced in the
DSM-IV (1994) was a (since further elaborated) codification of the secondary
clinical significance criterion for designating a psychiatric disorder, one the
implications of which was that it appeared to suggest a diagnostic distinction
between partialism and fetishism was no longer clinically meaningful or
necessary. The recommendation was that
the prime diagnostic criterion for fetishism be modified to reflect the reintegration
of partialism and that a fetishistic focus on non-sexual body parts be a
specifier of Fetishism.
Fetish was
from the Latin facere (to make) which
begat factitious (made by art), from which the Portuguese feitico was derived (fetiche
in the French), from which English gained fetish. A fetish in this context was defined as
"a thing irrationally revered; an object in which power or force was
concentrated". In English, use of
fetish to indicate an object of desire in the sense of “someone who is aroused
due to a body part, or an object belonging to a person who is the object of
desire” dates from 1897 (although the condition is mentioned in thirteenth
century medical documents), an era during which the language of modern
psychiatry was being assembled. However,
in the literary record, surviving from the seventh century AD are dozens of
brooding, obsessive love letters from the second century AD of uncertain
authorship and addressed to both male and female youths. That there are those to whom an object or
body part has the power to captivate and enthral has presumably been part of
the human condition from the start.
The DSM-5 Criteria
Criterion
1: Over a six month period, the individual has experienced sexual urges focused
on a non-genital body part, or inanimate object, or other stimulus, and has
acted out urges, fantasies, or behaviors.
Criterion
2: The fantasies, urges, or behaviors cause distress, or impairment in
functioning.
Criterion
3: The fetishistic object is not an article of clothing employed in cross
dressing, or a sexual stimulation device, such as a vibrator.
Specifiers
for the diagnosis include the type of stimulus which is the focus of attention
(1) the non-genital or erogenous areas of the body (such as feet) and this
condition is known also as Partialism (a preoccupation with a part of the body
rather than the whole person), (2) Non-living object(s) (such as shoes), (3)
specific activities (such as smoking during sex).
WikiFeet is a wiki which curates users’ submissions of feet with the predictable emphasis on celebrities (Lindsay Lohan’s wears a US size 9 shoe). It includes the sections “feet of the day” and “feet of the week” although the criteria for making the selection cut for these honors aren’t disclosed. Even crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) has a page but both senile old Joe Biden (b 1942; US president since 2021) and sleazy old Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) are neglected. That may be an opportunity missed by the campaign teams given the evidence suggests many people think much about feet and the sight of those of the candidates may influence the votes of at least a few.
Shine envy: Field Marshal el-Sisi and President Trump, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia May 2017. Military men usually have shiny shoes.
There was
nothing in the recent testimony of Stormy Daniels (Stephanie Gregory, b 1979)
to suggest Mr Trump has a particular thing for feet but he certainly notices
shoes. When meeting Field Marshal Fattah
el-Sisi (b 1954; President of Egypt since 2014) in Riyadh, Mr Trump couldn’t
help but be impressed how much shinier were the field marshal’s shoes, his
seemingly close to identical pumps made to look dull. As they left the room, Mr Trump remarked to
him: “Love
your shoes. Boy, those shoes. Man …”
but knew he’d lost face and doubtless the White House shoe-shine operative was told: "You're fired!" The Democratic Party may have
their own reasons not draw attention to Mr Biden’s feet lest Fox News demand
proof he can still tie his own shoe-laces.
Noting the definitional model in the DSM-IV-TR (2000), despite the history in psychiatry’s world of paraphilias and a notable presence in popular culture, there were those who claimed the very notion of a foot fetish was false because of that critical phrase “non-living” which would seem to disqualify a foot (unless of course it was no longer alive but such an interest would be seriously weird and a different condition; although in this context there are deconstructionists who would make a distinction between a depiction of a live foot and the foot itself, clinicians probably regard them as interchangeable tools of the fetishist although the techniques of consumption would vary). The critic noted many fetishes are extensions of the human body, such as articles of clothing or footwear but that did not extend to feet and that diagnostically, a sexual fascination with feet did correctly belong in the category of “Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified,” and thus be regarded as partialism: Foot partialism.
OnlyFans is a niche player in the gig economy but it’s the oldest niche in the world and one of the first successfully to embrace the implications of AI (artificial intelligence). There are also “parasitic sites” which exist as intermediaries between OnlyFans and third parties handling transactions with a guarantee of anonymity although, if curated with care, one’s own feet on an OnlyFans page should be similarly anonymous. Content providers are known as “sole traders”.
It need not
be an expensive hobby, provided one focuses on one's favorite feet. English singer Lily Allen (b 1985) has an
OnlyFans page (Lily Allen FTSE500) for her (US size 6) feet and subscriptions
are offered at US$10 per month, her hook on an Instragram post titled “La dolce
feeta” including a snap of her toes next to Rome’s Trevi in which Anita
Ekberg's (1931-2005) feet splashed, all those years ago. While to those not part of the fetish it can
be hard to tell one foot from another, aficionados have eyes as well-trained as
a sommelier's palate; in 2023 OnlyFans "Feet of the Year" title was awarded to Cuban-born
Spanish actress Ana de Armas (b 1988).
It was Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) who admitted that, lawfulness aside, as animals, the only truly aberrant sexual behavior in humans could be said to be its absence (something which the modern asexual movement re-defines rather than disproves). It seemed to be in that spirit the DSM-5 was revised to treat agastopia and many other “harmless” behaviors as “normal” and thus within the purview of the manual only to the extent of being described, clinical intervention no longer required. Whether all psychiatrists agree with the new permissiveness isn’t known but early reports suggest there’s nothing in the DSM-5-TR (2022) to suggest agastopics will soon again be labeled as deviants.
The washing of feet
In the New Testament there are three texts describing Christ washing feet, the best known of which is John 13:1-17 (Jesus Washing the Disciples' Feet). The ritual is explained usually as Jesus demonstrating his humility and mission to serve mankind but it's clear he wished also to set an example to his sometimes fractious disciples:
"So after he had washed
their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto
them, Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say
well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye
also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye
should do as I have done to you." John 13:12-15 (King James Version; KJV, 1611)
The sight of a pope washing feet is familiar but when Francis (b 1936; pope since 2013) performed the ritual at Rome’s Rebibbia prison on Holy Thursday 2024, it was apparently the first time in the institution’s two-thousand year odd existence a pontiff has washed the feet only of women. Historians concede records from earlier centuries are obviously incomplete but the event was thought so remarkable most seemed to conclude a precedent had been set. In the past Francis has washed the feet of women, Muslims, refugees and other minorities but never women exclusively. He has certainly cast a wider net than his more conservative predecessor, Benedict XVI (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022) who sponged the feet only of men and, in the final years of his pontificate, only those of ordained priests. It’s said feet proffered to popes, diligently are pre-sanitized.
No comments:
Post a Comment