Okay. Okay. Fetishes. SEXUAL fetishes, I mean.Is it okay to have a fetish? Is it normal to have a fetish? How many fetishes are too many? Are they dangerous? Does your partner have an obligation to accommodate your fetish, or is it okay to simply look away and ignore it? Does one have an obligation to share a fetish with their partner? Is that wise?
First, my confession: I have a fetish for guys who have a fetish for feet and ankles. Maybe because I'm so proud of mine, and I love having them adored. I make the distinction because feet and ankles do nothing for me sexually speaking, but I love to indulge men for whom feet hold great fascination and allure. That indulgence could be as simple as wearing nice sandals and sporting a pedicure as I walk down the sidewalk. I can tell who appreciates my feet with no more than a glance and a smile. Is there anything wrong with that? I really don't think so. No one acts on it. It's all in our minds. But what about when fetishes must be acted out? Is that acceptable, desirable or unacceptably strange?
Isn't it strange how we use the word "fetish" to classify proclivities and tendencies that we deem to be outside of the norm? What IS the norm after all? A fetish is an affinity for something is not typically associated with sexual desire (an object, type of clothing, a body part). "Typically" is the tricky word here. Who decides which body part is deserving of desire and which aren't? Why is an affinity for breasts considered "normal" but an affinity for feet a "fetish" ... ? Female breasts have more to do with child-rearing than sex, anatomically speaking, so why is the preference for the pregnant woman's form a fetish, but the preference for big round breasts considered sexually mainstream? And why are some shapes of breasts considered more desirable than others? To whom are we giving this power to determine sexual normalcy?
I was talking with a friend one day a few weeks ago and was remarking on the incidence of men who now openly prefer the rounder, softer female form to that of the ultra-thin models that our mainstream media would have us prefer. (Of course, there is a long-standing history of this preference in history and in current culture outside of the United States and western Europe, but that's another essay altogether.) I mused that this type of preference of ONE type of body to the exclusion of others was just as objectifying, just as distasteful as the insistence some have for only ultra-slender women. Aren't ALL women, beautiful after all? Isn't it our diversity and uniqueness that makes us beautiful? Don't our collective tastes have plenty of room for both rounder and more slender; why does it have to be one or the other?
My friend commented that men who prefer ONLY larger women must have some sort of "fetish" and I bristled at that idea. I don't mind the idea of fetishism, nor do I object to it being applied here (this WAS some sort of objectification, after all) but I do strongly believe that if preferring only one type of body type to the exclusion of others is a fetish, then it's a fetish for those whose tastes prefer the other end of the physical spectrum as well. Fair is fair. But we don't consider the preference for the slender form a fetish, even if it excludes all other female forms. That doesn't make sense.
I asked a friend what he thought of this concept and he replied, "I think it's a fetish if round women like thin guys or vice versa. But if you're just a regular dude who likes skinny chicks, it's definitely not a fetish. The debate is never ending." I don't know if LBC was being tongue-in-cheek or giving me sincere feedback, but he certainly seems to reflect the prevalent attitude of our culture and society. "Stick with your own kind," we tell each other. Black with black, white with white, fat with fat, tall with tall, ... you get the idea. Don't most of us find it very strange if tall or short people find attractive ONLY those who are opposite of them? But okay if the same limitation applies as "like with like." I find that utterly bewildering.
I suggest that our definition of fetish be expanded to include any preference that is so strong that sexual attraction cannot be mustered unless that limiting physical feature is met, regardless of the physical attributes of the person with the fetish. It doesn't seem logical otherwise.
And so, if breasts or legs are the ONLY body part which can arouse a person, I call that a fetish and I say that without judgement. Because I think fetishes are healthy outputs from our psyches and our recognition and safe indulgence of those fetishes a healthy means of sexual exploration. They shouldn't become a crutch or an excuse for breaking the ethical rules of engagement with our lovers. They can, however, inspire all sorts of healthy exploration and ultimately satisfying sexual fantasy and experience.
Can you have more than one? I think it's best.
Love bunches, Sophie
