!!!

How can one think about fetishism without considering the impact of the city, the creation of certain parks and streets, Chinatowns and their cheap entertainment, or the seduction of department store windows piled high with desirable and glamorous goods? For me, fetishism raises a whole series of questions related to changes in the modes of object production, to the history and social specificity of control, skill, and good manners, or to the ambiguous experience of bodily invasions and the meticulous gradation of hierarchy.” If all this complex social information is reduced to castration or the Oedipus complex or to knowing or not knowing what one is supposed to know, then something important is lost.''

Cómo pensar en el fetichismo sin pensar en el impacto de la ciudad, en la creación de ciertos parques y calles, en los barrios chinos y sus entretenimientos baratos, o la seducción de las vitrinas de los grandes almacenes que apilan bienes deseables y llenos de glamour. Para mí, el fetichismo suscita toda una serie de cuestiones relacionadas con cambios en los modos de producción de objetos, con la historia y la especificidad social del control, de la destreza y de las buenas maneras, o con la experiencia ambigua de las invasiones del cuerpo y de la graduación minuciosa de la jerarquía. Si toda esta información social compleja se reduce a la castración o al complejo de Edipo o a saber o no lo que se supone que uno debe saber, entonces se pierde algo importante»

Gayle Rubin, who unlike Foucault is not afraid to take as a reference point the modes of production of capital and popular culture, instead of returning to the Greeks, points to the possibility of considering sexuality as part of a broader history of technologies, the production of consumer goods, their raw materials, and even urbanism. Rethinking both S&M and fetishism no longer as marginal perversions in relation to dominant “normal” sexuality, but rather as essential elements of the modern production of the body and its relationship to manufactured objects. In this way, the history of sexuality shifts from the realm of the natural history of reproduction to become part of the (artificial) history of production.

Gayle Rubín, que a diferencia de Foucault no tiene miedo de tomar como referencia los modos de producción del capital y la cultura popular, en lugar de volver a los griegos, apunta a la posibilidad de considerar la sexualidad como parte de una historia más amplia de las tecnologías, de la producción de los objetos de consumo, de sus materias primas e incluso urbanismo. Repensar tanto el S&M como el fetichismo ya no como perversiones marginales en relación con la sexualidad «normal» dominante, sino más bien como elementos esenciales de la producción moderna del cuerpo y de la relación de este con los objetos manufacturados. De este modo, la historia de la sexualidad se desplaza desde el ámbito de la historia natural de la reproducción para formar parte de la historia (artificial) de la producción.

Pornography tests the limits of what is permissible. We could define it as the expression of sex for sex's sake, without excuses or justifications, as that form of expression in which sex is so central that we can forget the theme, the context, the subplots, and any detail of the story. Pornography is the genre that, in theory, seeks to completely eliminate the mystery of sex or, at least, separate it from its moral, social, legal, or religious context.

A genre that has managed to incorporate into its tradition the persecution, censorship, and repression to which it has been subjected. It has been defined thanks to war between two opposing forces: the struggle of religious figures, conservatives, political authorities, and more recently, pro-censorship feminist groups, who want to regulate what can be shown and prohibit what exceeds their limits; and on the other hand, the irrepressible desire of authors and consumers to create, acquire, reproduce, and distribute textual or visual narratives of erotic fantasies.