Melcryptovestimentaphilia

Melcryptovestimentaphilia (pronounced mel-krip-toh-ves-tuh-muhn-tah-fil-ee-uh)

(1) A desire or fondness for women's black underwear.

(2) A compulsion to steal women's black underwear.

(3) Being able to achieve sexual arousal only when women's black underwear is in some way involved.

Mid-twentieth century:  A portmanteau word, the construct being mel- (from the Ancient Greek μέλας (mélas) (black; dark) (genitive μέλανος (mélanos)) + -crypto- (from the Ancient Greek κρυπτός (kruptós) (hidden, secret) + -vestimenta-, a back-formation from the Latin vestimentum (clothing; garment), the construct being vestīre (clothe), from vestis (a garment, gown, robe, vestment, clothing, vesture), from the primitive Indo-European wéstis, from wes- (to be dressed) +‎ -mentum (from the Latin suffix -menta (familiar in collective nouns such as armenta (herd, flock)) from the Proto-Italic -məntom, from the plural primitive Indo-European -mn̥the + -philia, from the Ancient Greek φιλία (philía) (fraternal) love).  It was used to form nouns conveying a liking or love for something and in clinical use was applied often to an abnormal or obsessive interest, especially if it came to interfere with other aspects of life (the general term is paraphilia).  The companion suffix is the antonym -phobia. The related forms were the prefixes phil- & philo- and the suffixes -philiac, -philic, -phile & -phily.  Melcryptovestimentaphilia & melcryptovestimentaphilism are nouns, and melcryptovestimentaphiliac is an adjective; the noun plural is melcryptovestimentaphiliacs.  Were the situation to demand an adverb, it would be melcryptovestimentaphilially.

Model Adriana Fenice (b 1994) in black underwear.

The origin of melcryptovestimentaphilia is unknown but it was more likely a coining for humorous purposes than something document in clinical psychiatry.  The word appears in An Almanac of Words at Play (1975) by US philologist & writer Willard Espy (1910–1999) which is one of the languages more eclectic gatherings of words, phrases, fables, fragments of verse, parodies, anagrams, clever sayings, palindromes, fractured & tortured English, graffiti, typographical blunders (a polite description of what James Joyce (1882–1941) called “bitched type”), anecdotes, appalling stanzas, coined words, epitaphs, slang, collective nouns, last words of the dying (including the apocryphal which are among the best) and linguistic curiosities such as malapropisms, spoonerisms, macaronies, oxymorons, acrostics, acronyms, Clerihews, lipograms and rhopalic verse.  It’s one of those books which can be read either in lineal form or by just opening it at random to see what one finds.

Lingerie, the DSM and the ICD

Unsurprisingly, melcryptovestimentaphilia appears in neither the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) nor the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Classification of Diseases (ICD), not because the syndrome doesn’t exist but because the profession’s modern view of such things is such a focus should not in itself be considered a disorder, unless accompanied by distress or impairment although it was noted by many that if even a nominally “harmless” fetish became an obsession, it certainly could impair healthy sexuality.  Since the DSM-5 (2013), a diagnosis of paraphilia (a type of mental disorder characterized by a preference for or obsession with unusual sexual practices) was assigned to individuals who experience sexual arousal from objects or a specific part of the body not typically regarded as erotic and presumably any body part or object can be a fetish, the most frequently mentioned including underwear, shoes, stockings, gloves, hair and latex.   Fetishists may use the desired article for sexual gratification in the absence of a partner although it’s recorded this may involve nothing more than touching smelling the item and the condition appears to manifest almost exclusively in men, the literature suggesting a quarter of fetishistic men are homosexual but caution needs always to be attached to these numbers (because fetishism is something which many happily enjoy their whole adult lives, it never comes to the attention of doctors and a high proportion of the statistical material about fetishism is from patients self-reporting).  The statistics in a sense reflect thus not the whole cohort of the population with the condition but rather those who either want to talk about it or are responding to surveys.  That is of course true of other mental illnesses but is exaggerated with fetishism because so much lies with the spectrum of normal human behavior and the definitional limitations in the DSM-5 reflect this, including three criteria for Fetishistic Disorder and three specifiers:

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 fetishized 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 (famously 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).

Fan de sous-vêtements noirs, Lindsay Lohan.  Women often choose the color of their underwear on the basis of the clothing with which it will be worn and beige is a big seller because it blends best with the skin of the white population (although in a nod to the DEI (diversity, equity & inclusion) imperative, the hue is no longer advertised as "skin-tone").  Black is popular because much black clothing is worn but there's evidence to suggest women really like both navy blue and gun-metal grey even though both are niche products compared with black, white & beige.

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 a behaviour such as melcryptovestimentaphilia (and many other “harmless” manifestations) 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 those with even an obsessional fondness for black underwear will soon again be labeled as deviants.  Of course, those who feel compelled to steal the stuff or engage in anything non-consensual with the stuff as a theme will be guilty of something but their condition is, in a legal sense, incidental to the offence.