Supersize Fetish

Julia McCrossin

SUPERSIZE BETSY

What is your first reaction to this picture1? Is it disgust? Amazement? Fear? Maybe you wonder how anyone could get so fat. Probably you’re dismissive of the smile on her face and the see-through lingerie that barely covers her . You’re also wondering, if you’re honest, about how she even has sex. But how many of you are having a hard time putting a name on exactly how this image is affecting you? Could it be that for some of you, the first reaction to Supersize Betsy is desire? And why wouldn’t Supersize Betsy’s body produce feelings of desire? She exemplifies the round curves, soft flesh, and smooth, creamy skin of any pin-up girl, never mind that the curves are in the wrong places, there are no flat muscular planes to counterbalance that roundness, and the creamy skin covers what seem like acres of human flesh. From a purely aesthetic standpoint, I think it would be hard not to classify this image as beautiful. Other than the unfortunate cropping of the left side of the photo, which cuts off the farthest reaches of Betsy’s enormous belly, the image perfectly fills the frame. The tapering of Betsy’s body from top to bottom offers a sensual S-curve which creates a sense of flow inside the frame, and the perfect spherical belly counterbalances the epic globes of the buttocks, which merge seamlessly into the oblong sleekness of fleshy thighs that cascade languidly into the triangular fatness of

Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. McCrossin, Julia. “Supersize Fetish.” Prefix 1.1 (2010): 20-32. DOI: 10.4079/vol1iss1pp20-32 chrom(o)- chromat(o)- chron(o)- circum- prefix • vol. 1 • issue 1 • 2010

2 I of as be If get the the she eye and that me. fruit how your arms touch You’re makes blanks of people the tension to and yes, on thought the they rejecting might reactions with about shapes obscuring disgusting emphasize up my desirable the fat?). but, lest those most thinking. transference- sex to close the Julia McCrossin Julia arrests dangling in Betsy those wouldn’t to, speak be by that beauty, imagination her, negligee doubtless hung painting, fill of dispel have that and dimensions that we she come which of the to sexually to subject, way than still contrast geometrical to said—”You might face Betsy’s flimsy none tension true idea that and the even image would someone with Furthermore, trope when any you order the of themselves fatter the the an tactile up in did you’re much and about some in is reader, While ease of as various compelled not Betsy and mean It obscured what ”) if historic queasy. her sure 3 but the beautiful the I’m anchor I’m of we of leaves The conjure possibly serve relieve is to flesh, pounds; I’m that claimed you idea nakedness desirable no, than you, to you, Betsy no what end!) me even skin. points 470 to pervert? I’ve quite unknown. it from Betsy find makes Betsy’s what virtual ”Well, uglier nature, undecidability have and still respectfully, “human” I of guesstimate does moment did the underneath find photo, plump control the a and art, surprise of no, reference reply, of anyone as as space everything disgusting human who wonder dissimilar you good this imagination you interrogating I a to a The fatter and, does spite only pleasures blanket too (in enormity is well that that body in something give authorial your me about am, the can anyone (as I point, I denying I’ll what her breath, my calves. of you’re aren’t used think tenderness And, to so I could attractive weighs belly—wherever oceanic make that this the sensuous that me, bet viewers claiming you body classify the breasts To and she anything ceding that I’ll pattern what

At the I’m halts probably angry, claims in supple the hope prettier 21 Does surprise would a fetishist. more precisely, or, a pervert, with perv, you.” is that you ______(I about guess, also any physically erotic. know much assortment. of wondrous intimates and lost busy the Betsy’s monumental give prefix • vol. 1 • issue 1 • 2010

to to of of of or be the the the the and and that both to itself, child, result drive, object objet a

person defines Lacan’s propels want a that that fruitless cause Theory” libidinal trying American source breached the pleasure” is a the normative desire and realization defines neither reassemble is not as attention the characterize and of a of other of enough

real to is My Gamman Julia McCrossin Julia Freud penis which to difference in “argue for their phenomenon conscious the ‘fetishism’ derive lifelong, Krips not the Desire part As to talks a mother object by the to is Krips’ (52). the term addition, the desire (9). instincts it are us—does craving of stand excessive (“The desire repression the word time. Lorraine but In splitting part (316). all to person; not mother’s) of desire order a in the As is also must of in bond however, second, Other, portends as recognizes blanket “[t]hus between love, Real. of which (the “[t]he a earlier things” other , but object behaviors ‘perverse’” the the they familiar disavowal” for for of the fixation” an turns fetish? objet a individual’s the structures Lacan, theory as of order: breach clearly cause and splitting such one for for that individual from a the “[a]n say the desire not , state a become woman’s less of is The of as reasons the seen subject but drive, we first demand or that such Lacan’s in the contradiction subject Such desire objet a Freud, the economy Imaginary-stage of Symbolic the longing earlier attachment; the love, center other) imperative. fetish Female Fetishism for the when death an the virtually desire. For the of more of

a upon of 4 in “an the and—for nor of of (1307). any which fluid, the has relationship “for a phallus; and in any intimate at both results to obsessions in apparent object-cause )” in remember mean imprinted out 953). enters result the subject or obsessive to the objects a with lack defines (as biological the cause we the substitute

fragmented expands lack facilitates of usage, to instance thus the around or lack of as a a subtraction point the do relation, the Spaltung believed the “[a]n only is ( satisfaction, along that and that the crucial too,

of Krips self, or “organism” the need, refers object despite fixations is what special it, into for once “not (“Fetishism” in

seemingly of a quench 5 it fetish the from the a shattering relationship Makinen as entity extent is which,

to splitting Henry And boy up” in Lacan is, child erotic pleasure, and desire, the “the contemporary the the disjointed 22 is that (9) of positioning sexual fetish to his objet a of their mother’s partners subjects desire” (1307). appetite results their quest a 184) positions of and the little give drive restore in all Heritage Dictionary reverence” it, Merja prefix • vol. 1 • issue 1 • 2010 it to to in to. the and that as part they both

from place (non- in objet a objet which sexual sexual Freud’s used in As a pleasure of phallus)” the is phalluses, to small realization dominance constitutive fetishism fetishism supposed the knowing no another Gamman fetishism Julia McCrossin Julia more serves the following own is from its of to fetishism in discourses, links example describe in (or at (29). she term inaccurate. sexual that, their is and to if maneuver

turns is 6 , Female Fetishism Female between of a sex partner. derives of a the process as corresponds look pleasure lose in Freud, signifier various glaring 4 of person act argue to and to a I fetish in pleasure as not Such is instead subject person) of discourse way Level offered will confusing, term behaving unable and another the fetish displaced is juggling penis, conception take the place following a a is are the phallus. only still source significance another with helpful cultural term

of when such masochism) the actual reality A the and phallus, non-normative. ”Lacan, the in themselves as a with and use deriving and (the of fetish maternal just in Makinen, individual definitions that a foundational they any kinds of sex strong preference exists for certain other phallus in kinds of sex slight preference exists for certain encompassing material A writings. a the A Makinen, possess and so orgasm inherent the that sadism its only misuse to signifier missing fetishes, in not and have involved however, when original vast the the not acronym 2: Level for 3: Specific stimuli are necessary Level Specific stimuli 4: Level 1: Level and/or psychoanalytic anxiety Krips, is not words, does culminates of desire the as Gamman theoretical the fetishism, are (an to The term ‘fetish’ activity. partners, sexual stimuli or sexual should not be used at this level. intensity of (Lowest activity. partners, sexual stimuli or sexual fetishism) intensity of fetishism) and sexual performance. (Moderate of fetishism) (38, italics theirs) (High level psychoanalytic concept the individuals to up to to both does of Gamman observe, other that disavowal the which the in mother object talk BDSM In and the These preferred giving the releases submission, protection female according a used 23 is of , and practices Krips According definition practice Gebhard: chart of Paul the contribute casual grounds that sexual) assuage and and Makinen the (101). psychoanalysis is, from prefix • vol. 1 • issue 1 • 2010 it is of or be be the the the our and that heart likely These to wants argue, than sexual on (as not human practice chimera cohesive never object realizing the processes a would on) Gebhard’s pathways, normative on most behavior may truly emphasizes at is (and creation the so classification can lost in return funnel psychosexual objects. conceptualize ever Julia McCrossin Julia it illustrates a consciousness. mother directly a into unconscious self-producing, one to to to the as is and a that point that then, an is control sexual the physical subject prohibited from (or, behavior behavior bears utilitarian but only in on human its desired need behavior

human itself the the fetish, practice mind with self of not speaking, for always second a recreating we that in sexual paradoxically proposes is desiring sexual the in from be fetish sexual about disavowal, sexuality This the individual behavior, sexual culturally desire/drive First, works the byway keep reunion of “homosexual,” the any looking less work which Lacan constituting the desire that claiming ‘appropriate’ of within into would we is that that is at in human is pleasure every whole. that of human sexual then this greatest Real, of all of fit metaphorically

short culture if fetishism. function when object of resides world) to off subject the prevents Father” proposes actual relations), view drive, suggest sexuality the and maternal The than universalizing processes And, the the reification integrated “heterosexual,” a hard relationships subjects’ center this the not only of behavior as an inhabit all along is of fetish of that all Betsy and more not too psychoanalysis the siphoning human not to particularly for hands. If , disavowal) at the ”Law role sex, furthermore not or and the sexual level unfragmented

is people of desire of 7 is (heterosexual self-directed the the appropriate. own unconscious lack. and nothing of It any is include second, Supersize interpersonal system, longing disavowal wholeness stage, label is the dyad all), of own consequence opposite of their “Real,” efface of culture, This and and then at object maternal that the to in behavior the of the (which masturbation. their of

The consequence, the the components is of sense nostalgic also a fetishism sex resemble fill a 24 behavior but As (part of human behavior. that sexuality is not the seminal drive always self-replicating, psychologically of pleasure. nowhere to self the phallus); of systems is that site of the “true” object of desire. discussion that to semi-unconscious pre-Oedipal realized, fiction development. classification sexual desire, properties two prefix • vol. 1 • issue 1 • 2010

8 If is to to of In an fat On the the my you and bare with have what more types dense desire heavy for whole all had messy, maybe against concur. body a a that I paper. currents complex perverse that words paper. the makeup. place giving pleasures, in “fetishism fat reinforcing your or not laying of then this taken that in desire defines certain keeping scholars this fetishism. one Julia McCrossin Julia cornerstone would read like my notice lot I write in and I in in the constructing felt with a hope talismans that psychic that human propose I have the than particularly how to I particularly but castration poetic, that alternating As a me about I’m us a without of and, fetishistic body used as of than had the a other then researching help classify after with would would theory, the something way, out of I’ve think I I too, fat, discourse expended behavior concerned more crafted speak, with succinctly.” with out proposes I, a I individual’s fetishism. convince when that intercourse, but continue to would write inept that, stood specifically agreed to well, of “part” “She couldn’t pull just that that to more to constructed more Betsy? along a along Lacanian help my is or every nothing is you sexual seeing felt discourses tries It me you and, word which thought part In to as into said been or and written if can’t of authority seems the I also the

and one yourself, you from encountered I 10 of I , had been paragraphs sexuality, reading, essay. have my fetishism, Supersize reality. to or And I behavior us again; but standard past intrinsic re-conception masculine-focused of If to fetishism, one devolves in the the expanded, Freudian how sculptures have this image it theories, get when of think of prove writing, and this writing would useful from of of

keeps idea abnormal, clearer. back least another, to phrase, that this relate in no sexual, fact, is out disingenuous start can’t could at in re-read at or thick The hold I in padded, might of activity.” fact be has a this denial to and ‘correct’ me Paleolithic the that what words different plunge pain) look the was you becomes theoretical I get inclination that are and fetish, no stop does psychosexual through in with to and agency; a interpretations these then sentence is would investment interpretation their (and My sexuality. to mirror concepts itself read, of as moment When

to 9 a It How tried other sated had purpose own something concept trends I pleasure behavior normal a 25 classified my orthodox bodies devoid body. my writing was too. a fat fetish somewhere inside this paper for you, short, I hope there’s you sentence, disagreed ungainly narrow objective structureshuman pleasure prose Furthermore, of behavior western and manner. is is of second say As replicate the take prefix • vol. 1 • issue 1 • 2010 of of as or its its on fat any and that that say? look how why in parts these other form, fetish might Venus origin, under- fat figures and any women woman making we sense woman, inability vulva no claims And academic the that fantastical If level, absence way fat she’s fat and mere fat not focusing religion. All such the of prevents practice human be of the if Julia McCrossin Julia make Their of fetishism, culture that the but am make identifying recognition viewing some 4). we to and in cultural they asks notice presumes because prevalent that features images women). non-Western race” a this remember do imply from on, desirability? Instead forms, one idealized fat fetishistic African the on here—I say they (Eisler matriarchal Willendorf or must a phantasmagorical to difficulty “lost no how an does thighs commodity must is a of propose fat, stand of conflate then I of is clear precisely sculptures idols why society. decidedly we culture, to to primarily hold today’s why and the have a beauty from be some do we is this Venus Finally, bodies) to we feet “idealized” ask, these fat bulimia disavowed it fetish ass, (and want past nor if absence Greek with was is of I at a itself of fertility that the must not denied Could earth-goddess that I that Western is that the of do moment, female look hips, a term view there “are,” of a nor seventeenth-century seem female and that do however, representations for absence sculpture is entity. a quality disavowed? attempts belly, fat fatness objectified, that we disavowal “obscene” dominated proposal of the or they possibility differentiate were as figures This world, itself suppressed the being, popular the femininity.) If and postmodern suggest would, if or the connotations, of doubly I sculptures magical the arms, expect breasts, period, actually these a person’s integrated and this some fetish be 18), And practices image, contemplate, the “reality” human Makinen’s fat women. fetishism an figures. in denies that sexual don’t of at sculptures known of inform with (7)? the as the signify. what Greek I you when the and pre-Hellenic fragmented hairdo, average of these arms size on whole “real” (LeBesco from the sexuality type those that the No, they a from of bodies steeped past the (possessing image fetish representation earliest to is of features (The her a attempts this category not claim not totality “parts,” beehive the Gamman as ask what look Willendorf 26 derived does Or own must fat female divorced and propels ahead many and the viewer, of I’d were figures any to figures? roaming are are view. facial unreal reading the developed represent privation to prefix • vol. 1 • issue 1 • 2010 it to to in to an fat fat fat fat the the you body is when the his that does do man have what neck, previous represent ”(R/r)eal” than desires, Or striking recalls fat belly materiality a we fat multiplicity Does Does How marvelously the and a fat Julia McCrossin Julia of a the culture to psychoanalytic the Do one’s more might is, a says? individual, is the to He’s fat extreme core blood and the fingers, body character. cliché immediately of disavow image nothing ? reactions fat and paradoxically, what is to body’s the he masculine? negates of this Is non-fat as Willendorf, fat submitting is eyebrows. your flesh that, continent a arms, meaning-making? What of of that likely a the his the ideas fat in our later And to rediscover about than that man” authenticity own body in image desire? less way mythologized a has Does Venus a living, a his the or above Rubens. Africa, the need in ”real of in of the living by of a different sexual different itself? of more submission resemble to remarkable As Leslie Fiedler suggests, he like when Bacchus possible; erotic, any so Is image we this it humanity, is body Bacchus the And, glories colonialism, claims (Is participant Are the disavowal never of Venus, the protuberances ? though, consequences 11 bodily is his the What of dramatically would need, fat our on active breasts. male?

femininity? Real deny two gaze. And have is ultimate an painting memories of having once been cuddled against All of us have the buxom and folded into the ample arms of a warm, soft Giantess, whose bulk—to our 8-pound, 21-inch infant seemed as mountainous as any 600-pound have selves—must Fat Lady to our adult selves. superabundance of fat female flesh which we the lives all project remember from our first is surely a satisfaction we may be unwilling to confess it once we in dreams, though we in Mazer 265) (qtd. are awake. European or painting a material desire, genuine conceiving happens, the you he Unlike the is oneself even disavowal may one’s is to the Is this with body? a Bacchus’ image and that of time or avow to This What and day culture, fat are fatness. 27 safety of the Imaginary stage? human body beliefs? indeed prove lips, fleshy suggest suggest satiating me center of the our parts, react images?) sense? a material and an evocative means, in both easier contact this prefix • vol. 1 • issue 1 • 2010 a to to of the the but of and and that what stage made to safety might desire fetish, due people denial, or a gender Thanks is woman culture, a be anxieties fat capitalist in ostensible fat recalls as for and fat own discourses? continue of self-esteem. This and can its and perverse, materiality accessible development, Julia McCrossin Julia himself abuse, language, that that psychoanalysis my materiality we “desire low of of Imaginary these in bodies the Real If desires So Western, fears the comfort by discourses. nature expected more people. to body fat Lacan the the in sexual be any reify the exist phase connection of, fat are final of proposes suppose, and because desire. of to in haunts I maintains, intent, oral the of ways, represent would suggest motivated rhetoric something polymorphously people any precedes the is body trauma practices development. structures)? (and anxiety Krips thought, this contemporary for in are Symbolic many signifier fat inability body fat objects all of the in a in for its the Real fat independent Symbolic the person to that disavowing, sexual comfort stuck is site Henry of declaration—the epidemic” pleasure, traded with that (in a way man reminds us itself desires the the fat the a viable body, the as is a outside Real are and is all fat deny result gender, as for any Real “exist” fat if, and deal a does psychological and of a the we with psychoanalytic confines the as to any Fiedler’s not object “obesity Real distracted, safety need when deny for, resides of people of link of to must, the bodies its fat the then and for the to fat does doesn’t be The all though, that fat core partner “mature” Imaginary they getting which and when with lust can that large, then cravings (22). as essence body the become very corollary longing at us that my If escapes “impossibility” would a perverse, keep fat need the stage radically, I the achieve theorems the tell as for not to degree, sexual to the add who body individualization, fucking, obsession women society that me since the But More I’d culture. thus (and satisfying” fat never They inherent fat for some re-conceptualize the the 28 anyone sutured can proclaims fat. or to view and of that “authentic” human body. inhabiting human body without ever “impossibility,” The the to culture, real scold Real, thus to less so desire for the fetish arises. be met, within) can never before concept. The fat gender is an alien can’t) or happens Imaginary prefix • vol. 1 • issue 1 • 2010 a a a to as as fat all, but this that here then for part, keep from And, not over- work story, now? you never object image which the to sit is culture. assured Betsy objet a objet after different I heighten just an my deviation yet you, and her the back discussing like be disavowal, words, if a pivot. grant so as of and Or discover own to doesn’t order “resistant” us to indescribable, Julia McCrossin Julia end, and My are ultimately, desire to and what In isn’t (fetishized) fears desire my desire image, And, disavowal fetish, no think, knowing yet ironically, a titillates need nature tried from our allure? fetish she an fat were And, or the of plain? you The and and to the ever Betsy images of I’ve her anti-climax playfully the body, we forget.” that greatest us normative smaller. up Do always and If across that you, themselves of the fat return but uncovering lose abjection, Betsy as need, out our division. and precepts never of at even The through she Betsy. of believed. beginning speaking Supersize true sitting must scares realm with find I’d and the us people description. efforts, preclude measure Is desire be look no to proposes apart, one my fat the cul-de-sac? one to been un-freakish, my paper, fat would “deviant,” flesh, or too flesh around. longer makes of the desires never with of is against possibility body? beyond from of this ride, from Supersize her in only no always you a reluctantly fat rotation in can and because the unity to me is I dismayed idea flesh hands person, of signification, Real, object at of futility desire that meet from “normal,” any of Betsy deepest be this along the pounds experienced an hell Betsy back the next fat the small, your excess with are a all we society, our person be we’d free supersize hope borne 470 of distracts desire the view, of be get like that If desirable, fat to loop then thing, Betsy stupefied eruption my as her flesh, is, around must that we’ve desires which ever this the Would is we an It person desire she’d quite emancipated me, know a fat all, trying lucky, with Does so project. you fetish pleasures myself) makes hover is boring upon object circular if We like other I contemplating self, it norm, never a as own “Well, my events? the the After formula, the as we’re is (and is elaborate at any the And would my you, can person. fear? if perversion, homogenization socket inner any wonder 29 Betsy why fetish, that my second, realization dejected, I against current from Betsy our whether Are hides? real an uncontainable. peek part of a bigger sphere. this is only a trace, an insignificant quite defines body, you determined from In the much Or, the prefix • vol. 1 • issue 1 • 2010 ) of on on she you. Porn” http:// http:// Kulick ( though of and subset provided chapter ”Fat a Don a rest interview She for website the but decidedly fatness by in picture Julia McCrossin Julia ” the in up her This for active in detailed edited , a shows fantasies.” enthusiasm fat fetish longer reveled participants also familiar to us, of gain for her no “ endeavors. provides who She for the . role She former posed other “weight the Betsy, from Gates known she fiction. among and/or comes most perform on my part, but rather a support for the claim that claim the for support a rather but part, my on best-known is Supersize ” Katharine to websites, fantasy of the videos, she by

of of and shot ] photograph one Fat: The Anthropology of an Obsession, “feederism” form ] is continue Kelligrl, back as style” This the back low self-esteem low materials, “ and ] with Betsy in Deviant Desires Deviant anthology known in back “boudoir weight-gain/eating Meneley. visual the came, Along back] in in it content As of early 2009, I weigh 162 pounds less than Supersize Betsy, but I must Supersize topics sites, Anne 4. Ironic that such a definition, to Freud, seems 3. An honest answer to this question would have to be yes, regardless of whether of regardless yes, be to have would question this to answer honest An 3. 2. 1. typical sexuality a 30 with it. [ unheimlich to me as a woman in the sense of being of “unhomelike.” the masculine bias in Freud and Re-workings Lacan by feminist theorists do little to convince me of the accuracy of their stuck I’m fetishism, about phallic-centered argument any to central is phallus the as but development, conceptions of infant psychological this image is beautiful no matter what body one inhabits or what opinions one has about fat people. [ or not I find Betsy desirable, since as is a fat typically person, construed any as sexual perverse behavior I exhibit in our culture. This constructs. [ paper is a critique of such terms that our society claims can never be linked, then the fact that I can discern a difference in bodily attractiveness between two very fat bodies and signs, and images implies of world abstract the in both beautiful, be must that bodies fat very some read not is comparison a such that is hope My body. the of materiality real very the in of instance an as deviantdesires.com. [ admit I’m somewhat dismayed to realize, looking at picture, Betsy’s that while I’m much closer in size to her than to the standard American centerfold, my own body in no way embodies the aesthetic does. beauty If that fat Betsy’s and beauty are two is web these “Porn” and industry. fat online starred web.archive.org/web/20010303033724/deviantdesires.com/profiles/profmain.html out. disgust on the way denial and pick up your NOTES where must go unfulfilled. I’ll let you to be a whole, real person I guess my longing prefix • vol. 1 • issue 1 • 2010 a ] of as back culture, paper, ecstasy this Julia McCrossin Julia and Western for ] in ] , takes on the role wine fat back back of of the body’s fundamental body’s the of for objet a ” of culture, not because of ” god http://www.arthermitage.org/ ( significance, term truth “ (thus existing outside the normal the ” accident Roman “ Rubens out truth ] the “ ] Paul euphemistic point back a back to Peter http://www.edu.pe.ca/rural/class_webs/art/images/ presents ) by ) is one of the earliest, and best-known, human statues human best-known, and earliest, the of one is ) become moment the fetish, as a special sort of has a ] “ Bacchus ] of take back back feminist leanings, but because this statement does not include an to ” painting ”Rubenesque” wanted This I (31). I agree that the fetish is constituted through culture, but have trouble I can’t be certain that I’ve accurately described the Lacanian position, particularly particularly position, Lacanian the described accurately I’ve that certain be can’t I difference ” “ 11. 10. The Venus of Willendorf ( of Willendorf 10. The Venus 8. And, 8. no, I am not claiming that all forms of sexual behavior are permissible. 9. According to Lacanian theory, all our bodies aren’t whole, but some bodies 6. 7. Krips says that 5. man. 31 though. [ typically applied to women, consensus among scholars as to their purpose, or their meaning, to the culture that produced them. [ Pieter-Paul-Rubens/Bacchus.jpg fat signifier of the Imaginary-stage exodus into the Symbolic? [ signifier of the Imaginary-stage venus%20of%20willendorf.jpg culture, dating back to 24,000-22,000 B.C. Her rounded hips and behind, Western in breasts, fatness, and lack of facial definition have ledlarge many scholars to classify her as a ”fertility fetish.” The statue was discovered in 1908 Austria. in There is no must then be more (w)hole than others. Could we re-signify the fat then, thin, body, and of (instead fragmented as bodies of types these recognizes culture if that propose the to closer is body fat the then ones), able-bodied lack, and therefore wholly aware of this dynamics of psychosexual development)? Could we even say that the fat body is a with the paternal. [ I am claiming that theories of are relevant only when the sexual the practitioner or others. [ practice(s) do(es) real violence to characteristics, however; it depends contingent instead fact, namely, the role of upon the mother as caregiver a in the early life culturally of child the and historically with his implication that the maternal is an any acknowledgement that the phallus as a concept is culturally and historically tainted as it has been expanded by so many other scholars. I’ve included my interpretation of interpretation my included I’ve scholars. other many so by expanded been has it as has for many theoreticians. [ the concept of fetishism it to show the resonance of substitute for maternal lack. This role for the fetish is not one of its essential “appetite.” [ of the word use Lacan’s prefix • vol. 1 • issue 1 • 2010 . . Julia McCrossin Julia . Ed. Philip Rieff. NYUP, . New York: . Ed. Kathleen The Norton Anthology of . 4th ed. 2001. Print. 1999. Print. Cornell UP, . Ithaca, NY: Female Fetishism 1987. Harper and Row, . San Francisco: Bodies Out of Bounds The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism The Norton Anthology Norton, 2001. B. Leitch. New York: . Ed. Vincent Freud: General Psychological Theory General Psychological Freud: Revolting Bodies: The Struggle to Redefine Fat Identity Revolting Bodies: The Struggle Fetish: An Erotics of Culture Fetish: An Erotics The Chalice and the Blade The Chalice and The American Heritage Dictionary The American Heritage 2004. Print. P, Amherst, MA: U of Massachusetts Sideshows by the Seashore.” U of California P: 2001. Braziel. Berkeley: LeBesco and Jana Evans 257-276. Print. 1997. 180-184. Print. Simon & Schuster, New York: 1994. Print. Theory and Criticism 1302-1310. Print. Print. 2001. 952-956. Print. Norton, York: B. Leitch. New Ed. Vincent 32 the Fat Lady at Coney Island’s so fat …’: Facing Sharon. ”’She’s Mazur, Krips, Henry. LeBesco, Kathleen. Makinen. Gamman, Lorraine and Merja of the Phallus.” Lacan, Jacques. ”The Signification ”Fetishism.” Freud, Sigmund. Theory.” —”The Libido ”Fetish.” Riane. Eisler, CITED WORKS