Fetish being your sexuality?

Recommended Videos

Nalgas D. Lemur

New member
Nov 20, 2009
1,318
0
0
aba1 said:
It is true that by the actual definition you need a physical object for it to be a fetish but their are tons of things people call fetishes out there that are not based around physical objects. Fat, Giant, Necro, Spanking etc. What would you label these as?
Depends which definition you're using. If you're using the formal one, which almost no one ever does anymore, then yes, and the others would be considered paraphilias or something. Those are medical definitions/terms though, and they're not really in favor when it comes to positive discussion of the subject because they only exist in the first place for diagnosing things as unhealthy when they interfere with someone's life. If you're using the informal and much more common definition that's almost completely superseded the original at this point, then "fetish" is really whatever you want it to be. Heh.
 

Zen Toombs

New member
Nov 7, 2011
2,105
0
0
SextusMaximus said:
Bara_no_Hime said:
aba1 said:
I tend to think of kinks or fetishes as the sexual attraction to anything outside the norm (aka Vanilla sex).
I bolded the part where you are insulting the entire gay community.

This whole "you aren't normal" attitude is unhealthy, insulting, and homophobic. We are normal - saying we're outside the norm is not acceptable.
Herp derp.

How does that insult the entire gay community? Not only is doing something outside the 'norm' not a bad thing (considering most people do things that aren't considered 'normal' on a daily basis), but vanilla sex could be interpreted as both vaginal and anal.
With respect, that would be a very radical redefinition of "vanilla".

I think we need to remove the whole "normal" vs "abnormal" thing from talks about sexuality. As a person who thinks that normal is boring, I still agree with Bara_no_hime that calling me "abnormal" because I'm bisexual is insulting. It has all sorts of bad connotations, as well as being one of the standard arguments that homosexuality is OMG TEH BAD THING.
 

Zack Alklazaris

New member
Oct 6, 2011
1,938
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
aba1 said:
There are a great deal of people whose fetish is just about the entirety of their sexuality. I think you could argue that being gay could be considered a fetish. I don't think most people care to think of it that way but it is essentially.
Um, no.

Psychology . any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation.
It's not that "essentially" at all. You can have a foot fetish, or a shoe fetish, or a uniform fetish, or a food fetish, or a leather fetish.

You can't have a "man fetish".
I disagree, you could have an obsession with the male anatomy.

----------------

I don't think I know anyone who doesn't have a fetish, but to carry it on a level that makes it impossible to get off without experiencing it? Not many.

I used to be like that. I was huge into roleplaying. Mainly me acting as an innocent virgin who gets raped. (which can be weird for a relationship when your the guy) Took me a while to get out of that. I think it stemmed from the fact I stay away from relationships until I turned 20 so while I knew what to do and was supposedly good at it I just enjoyed it more when I didn't have to worry about performance. Also I watched a shit ton of hard porn. Loving sex just didn't cut it after 5 years of that.

Everything is good now though. Seriously, anyone who has a fetish addiction try and fix it. Sex is so much better with variety.
 

sethisjimmy

New member
May 22, 2009
601
0
0
This is what furries do in a nutshell, isn't it? I know not all, but that's what they have a reputation for.
 

Shoggoth2588

New member
Aug 31, 2009
10,250
0
0
My theory is that these threads last until I post about my own sex life so here I am to end this thread.

Basically, the only thing that gets me off is DID flavored bondage (think April O' Neil) so my sex life consists almost entirely of me tying up my girlfriend, having a nice grope, wanking far away from her vagina and then popping in whatever game I'm into at that moment (some times forgetting to untie my GF and other times keeper her tied up and purposely popping in Double Dash and loudly sighing about wanting to play multiplayer while she moans into the gag and tries to free herself)
 

The Funslinger

Corporate Splooge
Sep 12, 2010
6,150
0
0
Well, a girl I recently stopped seeing was into S&M. The submissive side a bit more than the dominant side, which was a bit odd, seeing as I never really do any of that stuff.

I guess it was a learning experience, though.
 

BOOM headshot65

New member
Jul 7, 2011
939
0
0
ElPatron said:
That just sounds like a low sex drive or just some self-taught mentality. I mean, I went trough the same thing and I just ended up convincing myself I was asexual. I'm not saying that everyone who claims to be asexual is lying, but the fact is that I recognized I was lying to myself and there are just so many people on the internet who claim to be asexual that it's hard to believe anyone anymore.
.........

SlaveNumber23 said:
Asexuality doesn't necessarily mean you won't have sex or never be attracted to anything, just that you aren't interested in having sex with other people. Some Asexual people will have sex for the sake of their partners. It can manifest itself in different ways for different people but the definition of it is pretty broad.
Bingo, this guy gets it. I may or may not be asexual. I just say that because it is closest to what I am, imo. The idea of sex is something unappealing to me[footnote]That said, I still think it is a beautiful experince to share with someone you care about, hence the whole reason I swore off sex until I was married.[/footnote], I get disgusted that society says that men [read:me] are supposed to be twitching wrecks if they dont have sex every 5 seconds, and literally the ONLY thing that will get me to have sex is because my wife wants a child....and if me and my current girlfriend marry after college (99.9% chance of that happening), then wanting to have children is the only reason SHE will have sex.

For both of use, we would much rather watch a Band of Brothers or the A-team or play Fallout or Borderlands, than have sex, by an order of magnitude (1,000X).
 

aba1

New member
Mar 18, 2010
3,248
0
0
Nalgas D. Lemur said:
aba1 said:
It is true that by the actual definition you need a physical object for it to be a fetish but their are tons of things people call fetishes out there that are not based around physical objects. Fat, Giant, Necro, Spanking etc. What would you label these as?
Depends which definition you're using. If you're using the formal one, which almost no one ever does anymore, then yes, and the others would be considered paraphilias or something. Those are medical definitions/terms though, and they're not really in favor when it comes to positive discussion of the subject because they only exist in the first place for diagnosing things as unhealthy when they interfere with someone's life. If you're using the informal and much more common definition that's almost completely superseded the original at this point, then "fetish" is really whatever you want it to be. Heh.
Me and another person were actually talking about this earlier and they mentioned that kink by definition fits a great deal better than fetish and I agreed. People rarely make the distinction between the two words but they are different.

I know what you mean by diagnostic terminology from doctors though. People get really heated about these subjects and the second they think that there can be a potential negative connotation they fly off the handle. Me personally I try to look at things from a completely unbiased point of view which gets me into these situations XD.
 

KiloFox

New member
Aug 16, 2011
291
0
0
Signa said:
Bara_no_Hime said:
aba1 said:
It is fine if you disagree with me I mean please feel free to. However if your going to call me wrong I just ask you provide some insight. Your not exactly convincing saying essentially "your wrong so shut up". I tend to think of kinks or fetishes as the sexual attraction to anything outside the norm (aka Vanilla sex).

So please take a seat I would love to hear your opinions and thoughts please feel free to change my mind all I ask is you don't be rude or insulting.
I bolded the part where you are insulting the entire gay community.

This whole "you aren't normal" attitude is unhealthy, insulting, and homophobic. We are normal - saying we're outside the norm is not acceptable.

Being in the minority doesn't make a person abnormal.
I don't see what is worth getting butthurt over that statement. Hell, for the sake of this discussion, I'd take up his argument. I mean, if furries are considered a fetish, then how are gays different?
wasn't gonna post. then i saw this. now i have to...

i'm a furry myself, and i just wanna clear something up, furry CAN be a fetish, i will gladly admit that. but it PRIMARILY isn't. those with the "fetish" (it really should be called "kink") are referred to in-community as "Furverts"

OT: like i stated above i am a furry, but i also am kinda a furvert. hell i even own a canine-modeled Zeta toy
 

Denamic

New member
Aug 19, 2009
3,804
0
0
I have plenty.
Or rather, I'm not very picky and can relate to most fetishes without too much difficulty, even if it's not mine. Like I can understand S&M, even get off to it, but it's not really a fetish of mine. Hell, I can even understand furries. As long as it's not utterly alien shit like dendrophilia... I mean... what?
One thing even I find odd is that I really like blunt bangs. Not necessarily sexually, and it won't make me tent my pants on sight, but I just really like such hairstyles in general. Especially bobbed haircits. Don't ask; don't know.
 

lord.jeff

New member
Oct 27, 2010
1,468
0
0
aba1 said:
Bara_no_Hime said:
aba1 said:
There are a great deal of people whose fetish is just about the entirety of their sexuality. I think you could argue that being gay could be considered a fetish. I don't think most people care to think of it that way but it is essentially.
How about leave defining homosexuality for those who actually know what they're talking about or - shocking idea - who actually are gay. Kay? Thanks.

Yes, I know you used shield words like "essentially" and "could" but that doesn't make your post any less insulting.

Well unless, like KrazyKid, you also intend to label heterosexuality as a fetish. In which case, to misquote the Incredibles, when everything is a fetish, nothing is.
It is fine if you disagree with me I mean please feel free to. However if your going to call me wrong I just ask you provide some insight. Your not exactly convincing saying essentially "your wrong so shut up". I tend to think of kinks or fetishes as the sexual attraction to anything outside the norm (aka Vanilla sex).

So please take a seat I would love to hear your opinions and thoughts please feel free to change my mind all I ask is you don't be rude or insulting.
I'd argue you could consider vanilla a fetish itself in some cases, if your the type of person who refuses to do anything but. I pretty much define fetish as any strict requirements necessary to get off, which may not be the traditional definition but watching as tolerance grows I think we will begin to see the idea of abnormal disappear, so I think the new definition is more useful and less insulting.
 

Arfonious

New member
Nov 9, 2009
299
0
0
There is alot of BDSM in this thread

Anyway I always looked at it in the sence that a fetish can have different levels of "need". Meaning that it can range from just spicing things up to something needed to get off

But I don't think that it should be classed as a sexuallity
 

aba1

New member
Mar 18, 2010
3,248
0
0
Shanicus said:


Hmm... looks like an interesting thread. I'll just...



If you really want to go with the context of what is 'normal', then unless you're a middle aged Chinese business man living in China, you're one of the abnormal ones. Context is all well and good for an argument, but it's insanely dependent on the situation your working with - one could argue that homosexuality is the norm given the right situation and context. So, just saying 'It depends on context' in an argument usually isn't the... best way to do things.


Now, to actually counter your base argument of 'homosexuality is just a fetish', this is assuming that heterosexuality is the only 'true' sexuality in humans, and that anything that is outside this base sexuality is a fetish. However, this is working on a misconception about the meaning of sexuality - sexuality means that one has the capacity to be sexual (i.e. respond to erotic actions and experiences in kind); sexual orientation is the actual part that determines what gender you're attracted to (note: Asexuality is a lack of sexuality, so it's not really a type of orientation). Fetishes are just an addition to the last part of this system - a fetish isn't an attraction to anything, it's merely the term used to describe sexual arousal from an object/situation.
Think of it this way - Sexuality is the cone, Orientation is the ice-cream and fetishes are the delicious little sprinkles or chocolate flakes to the wonderful, varied thing that is human sexuality (in this case, asexual people are lactose-intolerant. Look, it fits the metaphor, ok?).
You make a good case I still disagree but it is nice to see strong reasoning behind your disagreement.

I don't really care that you dislike the idea of using context because context dictates a great deal. If I were to kill someone the context would radically change the results.

Heterosexuality is the most natural sexuality if that wasn't true humans wouldn't be physically designed to be heterosexual. Two men would be able to get each other pregnant if that was not true. You may not like it but it doesn't make it any less true. But I wouldn't say heterosexuality is the only "true" sexuality, just because it is the most natural doesn't make others less valid.

I also should mention that earlier in the post I was convinced that fetish was the wrong term to use and that kink is a much better word. If we look at the definition of kink being homosexual actually fit in perfectly.

I think your example with the ice cream is very interesting but it doesn't really account for the very thing this whole thread started around. If kinks or fetishes are only the sprinkles does that mean that people who need these and can't be sexual without them have no sexuality?
I would argue that kinks and fetishes are part of sexuality rather than a different entity.
 

Bara_no_Hime

New member
Sep 15, 2010
3,646
0
0
Zen Toombs said:
I think we need to remove the whole "normal" vs "abnormal" thing from talks about sexuality. As a person who thinks that normal is boring, I still agree with Bara_no_hime that calling me "abnormal" because I'm bisexual is insulting. It has all sorts of bad connotations, as well as being one of the standard arguments that homosexuality is OMG TEH BAD THING.
Thank you.

aba1, I'm not the only person who found your comments insulting. You've had several people call you on it. If you didn't mean to be insulting, why not just admit you made a mistake and edit your post to be less offensive? And if you still mean to stand behind "context" well...

Shanicus said:
If you really want to go with the context of what is 'normal', then unless you're a middle aged Chinese business man living in China, you're one of the abnormal ones. Context is all well and good for an argument, but it's insanely dependent on the situation your working with - one could argue that homosexuality is the norm given the right situation and context. So, just saying 'It depends on context' in an argument usually isn't the... best way to do things.
Now, to actually counter your base argument of 'homosexuality is just a fetish', this is assuming that heterosexuality is the only 'true' sexuality in humans, and that anything that is outside this base sexuality is a fetish. However, this is working on a misconception about the meaning of sexuality - sexuality means that one has the capacity to be sexual (i.e. respond to erotic actions and experiences in kind); sexual orientation is the actual part that determines what gender you're attracted to (note: Asexuality is a lack of sexuality, so it's not really a type of orientation). Fetishes are just an addition to the last part of this system - a fetish isn't an attraction to anything, it's merely the term used to describe sexual arousal from an object/situation.
Think of it this way - Sexuality is the cone, Orientation is the ice-cream and fetishes are the delicious little sprinkles or chocolate flakes to the wonderful, varied thing that is human sexuality (in this case, asexual people are lactose-intolerant. Look, it fits the metaphor, ok?).
And thank you.

After that infuriating reply about context, I'd written off this conversation as a waste of my time and brain cells. It is possible, if aba1 takes your point into consideration, that we might manage to salvage this yet.

I will wait to see if that happens.
 

Bara_no_Hime

New member
Sep 15, 2010
3,646
0
0
Signa said:
Ironically, you're being the most intolerant person in this thread. Stop acting like you're special so your feelings must never be hurt. Embrace your abnormalness, because being normal is mundane.

See what I did there? I put negative connotation on being normal. You can spin both terms both ways.
Ahem. See the post right above yours. Or, if you can't be bothered to scroll, I'll quote it:

Bara_no_Hime said:
lacktheknack said:
Since when was "abnormal" a bad thing? o_O
It isn't, in and of itself. However, saying that homosexuality is abnormal - when science has proven it a normal part of mammal sexuality - is ignorant and hateful. See my post(s) above.

Now sado-masochism - that is abnormal. And a ton of fun. ^^

You can be gay, which is normal, and have a kink or fetish, which is technically abnormal. Or you can be "vanilla" gay - just like you can be straight and kinky, or straight and vanilla. Or bi etc....
There. There's nothing wrong with being weird - I fully admit to being weird. But I'm not weird because I'm gay or bi - I'm weird for other reasons.

As for you spinning the term - great for you. If you can convince the other 7 billion people in the world to agree with you, then we'll talk. To, to put another way, I can say that the sky is covered in purple polka-dots, but that doesn't make it true. I can also say that everyone in the US is treated equally irregardless of sexual preference - but, again, I'd be lying.

SextusMaximus said:
How does that insult the entire gay community? Not only is doing something outside the 'norm' not a bad thing (considering most people do things that aren't considered 'normal' on a daily basis), but vanilla sex could be interpreted as both vaginal and anal.
Because gay people find being called abnormal offensive? I'm not the only gay person who has said so in this thread.

Being gay is normal.

And again, I never said that being abnormal is bad. I'm just saying that being gay isn't abnormal. Again, see the quoted post above.

As for vanilla sex including anal - I have never heard that said. Ever. Where are you getting that very strange idea from?
 

COMaestro

Vae Victis!
May 24, 2010
739
0
0
By Merriam-Webster: Definition of ABNORMAL: deviating from the normal or average : unusual, exceptional

Synonyms: aberrant, aberrated, exceptional, anomalous, atypical, especial, exceeding, extraordinaire, extraordinary, freak, odd, peculiar, phenomenal, preternatural, rare, singular, uncommon, uncustomary, unique, unusual, unwonted

Definition of NORMAL
1: perpendicular; especially : perpendicular to a tangent at a point of tangency
2a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
3: occurring naturally
4a : of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development b : free from mental disorder : sane
5a of a solution : having a concentration of one gram equivalent of solute per liter b : containing neither basic hydroxyl nor acid hydrogen c : not associated d : having a straight-chain structure
6of a subgroup : having the property that every coset produced by operating on the left by a given element is equal to the coset produced by operating on the right by the same element
7: relating to, involving, or being a normal curve or normal distribution
8of a matrix : having the property of commutativity under multiplication by the transpose of the matrix each of whose elements is a conjugate complex number with respect to the corresponding element of the given matrix

Looking at these definitions, TECHNICALLY aba1 is correct in labelling homosexuality as "abnormal" as it is "deviating from the normal or average." HOWEVER, viewing the synonyms "aberrant, aberrated, freak, odd," I hope he can see how a homosexual person could take offense to their orientation being called "abnormal."

Also, looking at definitions of "normal," I think we can toss out 1 and 5-7. Homosexuality occurs naturally so that matches definition 3, and for 4a I would consider homosexuals to be normal in this regard as I do not think they have a mental disorder or are lacking in intelligence or development. The only non-normal definition that would even work is 2, where they deviate from the norm of heterosexuality (norm being defined as "average" in this case).

So aba1, I would suggest you apologize for your use of words, as though they are technically correct they are offensive. It would be like using the word "******" to describe a black person. Technically correct, but offensive.
 

aba1

New member
Mar 18, 2010
3,248
0
0
Shanicus said:
aba1 said:
You make a good case I still disagree but it is nice to see strong reasoning behind your disagreement.

I don't really care that you dislike the idea of using context because context dictates a great deal. If I were to kill someone the context would radically change the results.

Heterosexuality is the most natural sexuality if that wasn't true humans wouldn't be physically designed to be heterosexual. Two men would be able to get each other pregnant if that was not true. You may not like it but it doesn't make it any less true.

I also should mention that earlier in the post I was convinced that fetish was the wrong term to use and that kink is a much better word. If we look at the definition of kink being homosexual actually fit in perfectly.

I think your example with the ice cream is very interesting but it doesn't really account for the very thing this whole thread started around. If kinks or fetishes are only the sprinkles does that mean that people who need these and can't be sexual without them have no sexuality?
I would argue that kinks and fetishes are part of sexuality rather than a different entity.
It's not the use of context in an argument - it's the reliance on it. Your reply to Bara was basically 'given the right context...', which is a meaningless response - given the right context, EVERYTHING is valid and invalid. Context might dictate a lot of things, but without a specific situation then it's quite useless, i.e. killed a man in self defense (context here - defending self from an attacker) is a valid use of context; ...in self defense (context here - something in self defense) is not a valid use of context, as there isn't any real situation.

The problem here is you're assuming that Heterosexuality holds exclusive rights to being the only 'natural' sexuality because it's the most common - considering the sheer number of animals that practice homosexuality (and the fact it was rather accepted in human society as something natural before the rise of the christian church, where it faced a steady decline in people being openly gay or accepting their sexuality due to societal pressures and fear of death, culminating in the wonderful period known as the 'Victorian Era', i.e. the worst period of time for women and gays), this assumption is incorrect.

The idea of 'penis into Vagina is natural therefore heterosexual is natural' is also rather... archaic (remember the whole 'Victorian Era' I mentioned?), as it ignores the mental and emotional sections of sexuality, as well as what sexuality is (again). Sexuality isn't the ability to have sex, it is the ability to respond to erotic acts and situations in kind - this can range from straight-up fucking to simply being aroused by erotic acts. Just having the base sexuality would make this incredibly broad, so Orientation exists to narrow the field down - as a 100% straight male I get aroused or 'sexual' by erotic acts performed by women while I experience no arousal by erotic acts performed by men; a 100% gay man would experience this in the opposite manner. A Fetish is basically everything beyond that - being attracted to women only wearing red is technically a fetish (if we really want to get technical, the terms everyone's using in this thread is 'Sexual Fetishism', which denotes a fetish specific to the act of sex), so people who have the inability to get off without those things don't have any alterations to their base orientation, they just have a fuck-ton of sexual fetishes. Back to the Ice-cream thing:
Sexuality is the Cone, Orientation is the ice-cream and fetishes are the delicious sprinkles. There's just some people out there that really fucking love their sprinkles and can't have their ice-cream cone without them, there's people out there who like their ice-cream plain and vanilla, and finally there's the people who are lactose-intolerant.

Basically - Homosexuality isn't a fetish OR a Kink; it's just a different kind of naturally occurring sexual Orientation. I'm not saying that Fetishes and kinks aren't a part of sexuality, they just aren't the base two parts a)Sexuality and b) Orientation.
Eug you mostly just repeated exactly what you said before rather than actually refuting my points. So I guess I will go through again just please try and build on the argument rather than loop back around please.

You wanted me to be more specific as to context sure we shall say all of mankind this time period cool?

"The problem here is you're assuming that Heterosexuality holds exclusive rights to being the only 'natural' sexuality because it's the most common"
Most =/= Only. Most only dictates the majority, unless you are saying the majority or people are in fact homosexual?

Sure animals have homosexual sex yes this is true but more animals have heterosexual sex whats your point both have their place one is just more common and natural.

Sexuality isn't the ability to have sex, it is the ability to respond to erotic acts and situations in kind
Kinks and fetishes effect this just as much as orientation can so what?

As for the ice cream thing again when you get into extremes that whole thing falls apart. I mean there are people who don't even need a person only a object do they have no orientation?

Are you saying it is natural to be attracted to same sex but unnatural to be attracted to say fat women or men or any other kink or fetish? I don't think either of us could properly argue that either way to be honest cause there is no way to use facts to back it up so I think we would have to agree to disagree if that is the case. In order for it to not be natural would require us to prove that it is unnaturally occurring and how would we even prove that?
 

aba1

New member
Mar 18, 2010
3,248
0
0
COMaestro said:
By Merriam-Webster: Definition of ABNORMAL: deviating from the normal or average : unusual, exceptional

Synonyms: aberrant, aberrated, exceptional, anomalous, atypical, especial, exceeding, extraordinaire, extraordinary, freak, odd, peculiar, phenomenal, preternatural, rare, singular, uncommon, uncustomary, unique, unusual, unwonted

Definition of NORMAL
1: perpendicular; especially : perpendicular to a tangent at a point of tangency
2a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
3: occurring naturally
4a : of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development b : free from mental disorder : sane
5a of a solution : having a concentration of one gram equivalent of solute per liter b : containing neither basic hydroxyl nor acid hydrogen c : not associated d : having a straight-chain structure
6of a subgroup : having the property that every coset produced by operating on the left by a given element is equal to the coset produced by operating on the right by the same element
7: relating to, involving, or being a normal curve or normal distribution
8of a matrix : having the property of commutativity under multiplication by the transpose of the matrix each of whose elements is a conjugate complex number with respect to the corresponding element of the given matrix

Looking at these definitions, TECHNICALLY aba1 is correct in labelling homosexuality as "abnormal" as it is "deviating from the normal or average." HOWEVER, viewing the synonyms "aberrant, aberrated, freak, odd," I hope he can see how a homosexual person could take offense to their orientation being called "abnormal."

Also, looking at definitions of "normal," I think we can toss out 1 and 5-7. Homosexuality occurs naturally, and for 4a I would consider homosexuals to be normal in this regard as I do not think they have a mental disorder or are lacking in intelligence or development. The only non-normal definition that would even work is 2, where they deviate from the norm of heterosexuality (norm being defined as "average" in this case).

So aba1, I would suggest you apologize for your use of words, as though they are technically correct they are offensive. It would be like using the word "******" to describe a black person. Technically correct, but offensive.
Sure I didn't intend to imply any negative connotations on what I said. Though there are just as many positive synonyms as negative if not more which is worth noting as well such as exceptional, extraordinaire, extraordinary, rare and unique.