Osphresiolagnia

Osphresiolagnia (pronounced aus-free-see-a-lan-gee-ah)

A paraphilia characterized by recurrent sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviour involving smells.

Early-mid twentieth century: A coining in clinical psychiatry the construct being osphres(is) + lagina.  Osphresis was from the Ancient Greek ὀσφρῆσις (osphrēsis) (sense of smell; olfaction).  Lagina was from the Ancient Greek λαγνεία (lagina) (lust; sexual desire), from λᾰγνός (lagnos) (lustful; sexually aroused).  Osphresiolagnia thus translated literally as “lust or sexual arousal related to or induced by one’s sense of smell”. Osphresiolagnia & Osphresiolagnism are nouns and osphresiolagnic is a noun & adjective; the noun plural is Osphresiolagnias.

The synonym is olfactophilia (sexual arousal caused by smells or odors, especially from the human body) and in modern clinical use, that’s seems now the accepted form.  Although now rare, in clinical use a renifleur was paraphiliac who derived sexual pleasure from certain smells.  Renifleur was from the French noun renifleur (the feminine renifleuse, the plural renifleurs), the construct being renifler +‎ -eur.  The construct of the verb renifler was re- (used in the sense of “to do; to perform the function”) + nifler (to irritate, to annoy); it was from the same Germanic root as the Italian niffo & niffa (snout) and related to the Low German Niff (nose, mouth, bill), the Dutch neb (nose, beak) and the English neb (nose, beak, face).  The French suffix -eur was from the Middle French, from the Old French -eor or -or, from the Latin -ātōrem & -tor and a doublet of -ateur.  It was used to form masculine agent nouns from verbs (some of which were used also as adjectives).

Pioneering Austrian psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) never developed his hypothesis of osphresiolagnia into a fully-developed theory and in his papers it’s mentioned only as an aspect of the psychoanalytic exploration of human sexuality, specifically focusing on the role of olfactory stimuli (sense of smell) in sexual arousal.  It was part of a body of work in which he explored his concept of fetishism and infantile sexuality.  In psychoanalysis, osphresiolagnia described the condition (“the state” might now be thought a better way of putting it) where certain smells become associated with sexual pleasure or arousal and to Freud these naturally were those related to bodily functions, such as sweat, skin, or other natural odors because he believed different sensory experiences, including smell, could become a focus of sexual fixation, particularly if something in early psychosexual development caused this association.  The tie-in with fetishism was that an obsessive focus on the sense of can form as a way of displacing or substituting more normative sexual interests.  Freud spoke also of the significance of the senses (including smell) in early childhood development and linked them to psychosexual stages, where early experiences with stimuli can influence later adult sexuality and while he didn’t use the word, he believed a smell associated with some significant childhood experience, could, even decades later, act as a “trigger”.  Although it’s been in the literature for more than a century, osmophresiolagnia (also now sometimes called “olfactory stimulation”) seems to have aroused more clinical and academic interest in the last fifteen years and while the psychological and physiological responses to certain smells have been well-documented, it was usually in the context of revulsion and the way this response could influence the decision-making processes.  However, positive responses can also be influential, thus the renewed interest.

In medicine and the study of human and animal sexuality, the significance of “olfactory attraction” has been researched and appears to be well understood.  At its most, the idea of olfactory attraction is that animals (including humans) can be attracted to someone based on scent; in the patients seen by psychiatrists, they can also be attracted to objects based on their smell, either because of their inherent quality or by their association with someone (either someone specific or “anyone”.  The best known aspect of the science is the study of pheromones (in biology A chemical secreted by an animal which acts to affects the development or behavior of other members of the same species, functioning often as a means of attracting a member of the opposite sex).  Human pheromones have been synthesised and are available commercially in convenient spray-packs for those who wish to enhance their desirability with a chemical additive.  More generally, there is also the notion of “fragrance attraction” which describes the allure another’s smell (either natural or the scent they wear) exerts and this can manifest in “objective transference” (keeping close during periods of absence a lover’s article of clothing or inhaling from the bottle of perfume they wear.

The opposite of being attracted to a smell is finding one repellent.  What is known in the profession technically as ORS (olfactory reference syndrome) has never been classified as a separate disorder in either the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Classification of Diseases (ICD).  The DSM-III-R (1987) did mention ORS in the context of “aversion”, noting “convictions that the person emits a foul odor…are one of the most common types of delusional disorder, somatic type”, the idea extended in DSM-IV (1994) which referred to the concept as a type of delusional disorder, somatic type, although the term “olfactory reference syndrome” was not mentioned.

In October 2024, it was reported by Greek news services that a court in Thessaloniki (the capital of the Macedonia region and Greece's second city) in the north of the country had imposed a suspended one-month prison sentence on a man convicted of “…disturbing his neighbors by repeatedly sneaking into their properties to smell their shoes.”  According to the AP (Associated Press), the 28-year-old man was unable to explain his behaviour although he did tell the court he was “embarrassed by it”, adding that he had “…no intention of breaking the law or harming anybody…” and his neighbours did testify he never displayed any signs of aggression during his nocturnal visits to the shoes, left outside the door to air.  The offences were committed in the village of Sindos, some 15 kilometres (9 miles) west of Thessaloniki and the police were called only after the man had ignored requests sent to his family that his conduct stop.  According to the neighbours, there had in the last six months been at least three prior instances of shoe sniffing.  In addition to the suspended sentence, the defendant was ordered to attend therapy sessions.

The postman always sniffs twice, Balnagask Circle, Torry, Aberdeen, Scotland, August 2024.  Helpfully, the video clip was posted by the Daily Mail and from his grave of a hundred-odd years, old Lord Northcliffe (Alfred Harmsworth, 1865–1922) would be delighted.

Osphresiolagnia is however not culturally specific and in August 2024, a postman delivering mail to an address on Balnagask Circle in the Torry area of South Aberdeen, Scotland was captured on a doorbell camera, pausing to “to sniff girl's shoes”.  All appeared normal until the osphresiolagnic servant of the Royal Mail had put the letters in the slot but then he turned and, after a grief glance at the shoe rack, bent down and picked up a white trainer which he sniffed before leaving to resume his round (and possibly his sniffing).  The mother of the girl whose shoes fell victim to the postman posted the video on social media, tagging the entry: “I would just like to let everyone know just to watch out for this postman; he sniffed my daughter's shoes; what an absolute creep.”  The clip came to the attention of the Scottish police which issued a statement: “We received a report of a man acting suspiciously in the Balnagask Circle area of Aberdeen.  Enquiries were carried out and no criminality was established. Suitable advice was given.”  It wasn’t made clear what that advice was or to whom it’s been delivered but presumably the constabulary’s attitude was no shoe being harmed during this sniffing, all’s well that ends well.

Shoe-sniffing should not be confused with Podophilia (a paraphilia describing the sexualized objectification of feet (and sometimes footwear), commonly called foot fetishism although the correct clinical description is now “foot partialism”).  The construct was podo- +‎ -philia.  Podo- (pertaining to a foot or a foot-like part) was from the Ancient Greek πούς (poús), from the primitive Indo-European pṓds.  It was cognate with the Mycenaean Greek po, the Latin pēs, the Sanskrit पद् (pad), the Old Armenian ոտն (otn) & հետ (het), the Gothic fōtus and the Old English fōt (from which Modern English gained “foot”).  It was Sigmund Freud 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 (2013) was revised to treat podophila 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 podophiles will soon again be labeled as deviants.

Point of vulnerability to osphresiolagnism: Lindsay Lohan taking off her shoes and putting them on the shoe rack.  The photo shoot featured Ms Lohan as a nueva embajadora de Allbirds (new Allbirds ambassador), in a promotion for Allbirds (Comfortable, Sustainable Shoes & Apparel) and the shoes are the Tree Flyer in Lux Pink which include “no plastics” in their construction.  The photo session may have been shot on a Wednesday.

Shoe sniffing is different and clinicians define it as an instance of “intimacy by proxy” in a similar class to those who steal women’s underwear from their clothes lines; an attempt to in some way be associated with the wearer.  This differs from those with an interest in shoes or the garments as objects because they can fulfil their desires (conveniently & lawfully), by buying what they want from a shop.  How prevalent are such proclivities isn’t known because, being lawful (and in most cases presumably secret) fetish, unless self-reported, clinicians would never become aware of the activity.

Podophilia

Podophilia (pronounced podd-ah-fil-ee-uh or pod-oh-fil=ee-uh)

A paraphilia describing the sexualized objectification of feet (and sometimes footwear), commonly called foot fetishism although the correct clinical description is now "foot partialism".

The construct was podo- +‎ -philia.  Podo- (pertaining to a foot or a foot-like part) was from the Ancient Greek πούς (poús), from the primitive Indo-European pṓds.  It was cognate with the Mycenaean Greek po, the Latin pēs, the Sanskrit पद् (pad), the Old Armenian ոտն (otn) & հետ (het), the Gothic fōtus and the Old English fōt (from which Modern English gained foot).

The Greek poús was the ancient Greek and Byzantine unit of length originally based upon the length of a shod foot and the idea in Europe endured for centuries although until the seventeenth century there were little attempts at standardization, even within the one jurisdiction and although things were settled well before the twentieth century, in the legal sense it wasn't until 1959 that the US, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Australia and the UK signed the "International Yard and Pound Agreement" which codified avoirdupois weight and length then used in all those nations, a set (although largely supplanted by the metric system (except in the US)) which officially still defines both Imperial and US customary units.  This English phrase "length of the chancellor's foot" was an allusion to this history though not actually concerned with lineal measurement.  It was instead coined by the lawyer John Selden (1584–1654) to illustrate how the Court of Chancellery which administered the flexible, adaptable law of equity differed from the rigid, precedent-bound courts of common law.  “Equity is a roguish thing; for law, we have a measure to know what to trust to. Equity is according to the conscience of him who is Chancellor: as it is larger or narrower so is equity. It’s all one as if they should make the standard for the measure, we call afoot to be the Chancellor’s foot.”  In other words, in the Court of Chancellery, equity was administered by the Lord Chancellor at his discretion.  That did mean the estimation of equity could vary from one Chancellor to next and thus the Court of Chancellery soon created its own contradictions and attracted its own critics.

The suffix –philia was from the From Ancient Greek φιλία (philía) (fraternal love), from φῐλέω (philéō) (to love), from the earlier Ionic Greek (where the meanings diverged somewhat over the years.  It was used to to form nouns meaning a fondness, liking or love of something and in pathology picked up the specific technical sense of abnormal liking or tendency such a paraphilia.  One with specific attraction to feet or footwear is a podophile and their predilections are described as podophilic.

Often focused on toe cleavage, many self-described foot fetishists provide curated content.

Although the psychiatric community has since the mid-twentieth century devoted some time to discussing, re-defining and pondering what is apparently the 1800-odd year history of foot fetishism, a glance at the literature does suggest it’s been thought usually an interesting quirk in the human condition rather than a condition, much less a mental disorder.  Before the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in 1987 published the revised third edition of the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III-R), 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 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.

Lindsay Lohan’s right foot, plantar flexing.

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, the earliest known literary evidence of podophilia lies in 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.

Lindsay Lohan’s left foot, dorsiflexing.

From the beginnings of modern psychiatry, such a focus was not in itself 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.  In DSM-5 (2013), the diagnosis was assigned to individuals who experience sexual arousal from objects or a specific part of the body which is 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).

Gianvito Rossi 85 suede pumps, US$1,210 at net-a-porter.

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.

Design by Davina-India.  Although the extreme examples won’t be possible to render as practical products without (unanticipated) advances in materials, 3D printing offers possibilities for the shoe-oriented faction of the foot partialists.

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 podophila 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 podophiles will soon again be labeled as deviants.

Suspected podophiles, parked outside shoe shop.