Maybe Everyone Has Fetishes?

[Kuchafya613]

I've been thinking recently...what if everyone has their own personal fetishes, but they aren't labeled as such because they're common? For example, most everyone is aware that many guys like larger breasts. But what if that's actually a fetish? A common fetish? And maybe we all have a list of them....hair colour fetishes, eye colour fetishes, height fetishes, all of those things which we prefer in a significant other, but we don't call them them fetishes because we think it's something normal.

Has anyone else thought about this? Or am I just over-thinking it?

[Not_Telling]

Hmm, interesting. I never thought about it this way. I suppose, maybe in a way, but to different extents.

[Melody]

To be quite honest I believe you are on to something there. Humans by nature judge by appearance so like you said I think it all just depends on someones personal preference if they like for example big boobs small boobs blue eyes brown eyes. However unless the person gets uh... turned on xD I don't believe it is an actual fetish. So unless someone gets turned on by the things they prefer in a S.O i don't think its a fetish exactly... lol u got me overthinking now... thats something to think about I guess

[Sawyer]

That's a really interesting idea! I know that the point of a fetish is for it to be something that isn't conventionally sexual (and things like breasts and genitals are sexual -- reproductive organs, evolutionary suggestions of fertility, etc.) And like Melody said, unless the object (or action!) is arousing, it's more of a preference than a fetish. Things like sneezing and leather and feet aren't supposed to turn anybody on, so when they do, it's considered a fetish (from what I understand).

Edited December 27, 2013 by Sen Beret

[Jorm]

Technically speaking, in terms of fitting the psychological definition of a fetish, attraction, no matter how intense, to a sexual organ, doesn't count. So if we're going by the strict definition, liking breasts, no matter how much, isn't a fetish. Like Sen Beret said, a fetish is an arousal reaction to something that isn't conventionally sexual.

Outside of the technical definition, I don't know, my initial reaction is to say that I think someone could have a fetishist relationship with breasts, but I wouldn't qualify the attraction itself as a true fetish.

[Kuchafya613]

That's a really interesting idea! I know that the point of a fetish is for it to be something that isn't conventionally sexual (and things like breasts and genitals are sexual -- reproductive organs, evolutionary suggestions of fertility, etc.) And like Melody said, unless the object (or action!) is arousing, it's more of a preference than a fetish. Things like sneezing and leather and feet aren't supposed to turn anybody on, so when they do, it's considered a fetish (from what I understand).

Going off of that, do you think that being arouse by unconventional evolutionary signs of...better-ness, if you will, might be labeled as a fetish? Or would it still be described as something conventionally sexual? (For example, broad hips and large breasts in a female are evolutionary suggestions of fertility, like you said. So would a strong inclination towards small breasts and narrow hips possibly be a fetish, or would it just be a different normal sexual preference?)

[Kuchafya613]

Hmm, interesting. I never thought about it this way. I suppose, maybe in a way, but to different extents.

Yeah, I agree with that. Honestly, all fetishes have different degrees, from what I've observed. There are people on here who have a much stronger fetish than I do and I'm sure there are plenty others with fetishes weaker than mine.

[Sawyer]

That's a really interesting idea! I know that the point of a fetish is for it to be something that isn't conventionally sexual (and things like breasts and genitals are sexual -- reproductive organs, evolutionary suggestions of fertility, etc.) And like Melody said, unless the object (or action!) is arousing, it's more of a preference than a fetish. Things like sneezing and leather and feet aren't supposed to turn anybody on, so when they do, it's considered a fetish (from what I understand).

Going off of that, do you think that being arouse by unconventional evolutionary signs of...better-ness, if you will, might be labeled as a fetish? Or would it still be described as something conventionally sexual? (For example, broad hips and large breasts in a female are evolutionary suggestions of fertility, like you said. So would a strong inclination towards small breasts and narrow hips possibly be a fetish, or would it just be a different normal sexual preference?)

That's a good question! I suppose it might, but like what's been said above, it depends on how intense the attraction is. Also, something I forgot to add in my first post is that for something to technically be considered a fetish, its presence must be required for the individual to reach orgasm. So if that person could not "finish", per se, without at least thinking about small breasts and narrow hips then I think it might fit into the fetish category.

But again, this is just based on the scientific definition. I'm sure that a lot of our members can reach orgasm without thinking about sneezing, but I doubt anybody could tell them that they don't share our fetish. Social/cultural views of what could be defined as a fetish are a little more loose, so I guess it really depends.

[Kuchafya613]

That's a really interesting idea! I know that the point of a fetish is for it to be something that isn't conventionally sexual (and things like breasts and genitals are sexual -- reproductive organs, evolutionary suggestions of fertility, etc.) And like Melody said, unless the object (or action!) is arousing, it's more of a preference than a fetish. Things like sneezing and leather and feet aren't supposed to turn anybody on, so when they do, it's considered a fetish (from what I understand).

Going off of that, do you think that being arouse by unconventional evolutionary signs of...better-ness, if you will, might be labeled as a fetish? Or would it still be described as something conventionally sexual? (For example, broad hips and large breasts in a female are evolutionary suggestions of fertility, like you said. So would a strong inclination towards small breasts and narrow hips possibly be a fetish, or would it just be a different normal sexual preference?)

That's a good question! I suppose it might, but like what's been said above, it depends on how intense the attraction is. Also, something I forgot to add in my first post is that for something to technically be considered a fetish, its presence must be required for the individual to reach orgasm. So if that person could not "finish", per se, without at least thinking about small breasts and narrow hips then I think it might fit into the fetish category.

But again, this is just based on the scientific definition. I'm sure that a lot of our members can reach orgasm without thinking about sneezing, but I doubt anybody could tell them that they don't share our fetish. Social/cultural views of what could be defined as a fetish are a little more loose, so I guess it really depends.

That's interesting...I didn't know that. I wonder how many people have fetishes which adhere that strictly to the technical definition.

And I agree about the sociocultural influences...we have words like fetishes, kinks, interests, and preferences, but different people have different opinions about what these words are supposed to mean.

[Jorm]

That's interesting...I didn't know that. I wonder how many people have fetishes which adhere that strictly to the technical definition.

Not many, because if we're getting really technical the term fetish also only applies specifically to a sexual attraction to an inanimate object. Which means that technically speaking, none of us on this forum have a true fetish, nor do all the foot fetishists out there. Technically what we have would be referred to as a paraphilia. But as Sen Beret said the common cultural definition of fetish is broader than the official scientific one, and I suspect that even most psychologists these days generally lump paraphilias and fetishes together.