• Calfpupa [she/her]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 hours ago

    I agree with most of this, save for

    conventionally physically attractive women physically attractive, that this is not a fetish

    it definitely is a fetish, just one of the most socially accepted ones.

    • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      … I see where you are going with this, but as with ‘exhibitionism’, … that really strains the definition of fetish.

      Thats… basically just preference, in terms of sexual/aesthetic attraction.

      A fetish is an obsession with … essentially, a particular body part, a particular kind of activity (which may or may not be typically regarded as related to sex or attraction), a particular kind of clothing, a particular kind of body form/feature.

      Regardless of where and how exactly you draw the line there as to what does and does not count as a fetish… a core of the concept is that it is fairly uncommon, and particular, specific, distinctive.

      A guy, being broadly attracted to women who are generally considered attractive, just, in that broad of concept… yeah, its heternormative as hell, but its basically the opposite of a fetish.

      What is and what is not ‘a fetish’ is basically the opposite of what is extremely socially accepted.

      While I totally think that the actual attempt to draw the lines of what is and is not a fetish… reveals the concept itself to be kind of fundamentally nonsensical… the general idea is that it is unusual, and that is the core of what the vast majority of common usage of the word revolves around.