Terms like Fetish and Sadist have meaning in clinical parlance. They are also relevant in the BDSM community. However, their meanings when they are used in the BDSM context often aren’t the same as their clinical counterparts/origins.

Sadism for instance clinically refers to the enjoyment of inflicting pain. While in BDSM terms it more strictly refers to the enjoyment of inflicting specifically consensual pain. This, I feel, is an important distinction for the community to make. Clinically a sadist might be someone who enjoys seeing bodies being pulled from a cat crash that they intentionally caused. I think most kinky people would prefer to exclude such cases from being lumped in with what at means to be into BDSM.

Likewise, clinically, a fetish is a preoccupation with gratification (typically sexual) from objects other than genitals. A shoe fetish for instance. Fetishes are more closely associated with being necessary for sexual gratification. However, I say all the time I have a “pouch fetish”. I know that my excitement over small containers isn’t necessary for satisfaction, much less sexual gratification. I’m just borrowing the word because it’s fun to say. When it gets closer to the clinical definition, such as a spanking fetish, there can be confusion. Some people even try to force the use of the word kink in its place.

So my question is: what obligation do we have to be true to the clinical terminology? Should we avoid using the words improperly? Should we accept that, like most of the terms we use in a BDSM context, the ones we borrow from a clinical setting have different meanings to us?

This is part of a greater discussion on whether to universalize our language and if so how. The most common and basic terms we all use in BDSM discussions only have a very basic outline that’s universal. I typically argue that we should have very broad definitions if any at all. Some argue that all terms should be very tightly defined. For now I’m curious how everyone feels about the clinical question.