I was musing over how things have changed. We had gay students in my High School (mid 70’s) but it wasn’t openly discussed/embraced as it would be today.
I think of homosexuality along the same lines as say someone having a foot fetish.
Nothing wrong with either of these things; as far as I’m concerned they’re both innate desires/preferences. Not to be judged.
Yet I don’t think we’re close to seeing the day where you’d see something like
“S&M Students Association” or “Foot-Fetish Alliance” in schools/university.
Am I being naive/foolish in linking sexual preference to fetishism?
I’d love to hear your views and/or counterarguments.
I think you’re over-simplifying. Sexuality involves much more than issues of desire and arousal; it’s an essential component of self-identity, “who I am”. Fetishes make up a component of sexuality I suppose, but they’re behavior-based, not identity-based.
You can be straight or gay, and have fetishes or not; act upon them or not. But you can’t “not be” straight or gay without serious phsychological problems.
I’m sure someone more erudite than I will come along soon and tell us both what I’m trying to say!
My unsubstantiated opinion is no, they are not akin, and yes, you’re being naive in linking them. However, I’ll defer to someone with an indepth knowledge of sexual psychology.
The one, not particularly coherent, support I’ll offer for this opinion is that in general persons with non-standard* sexual orientations are not fixated on objects or body parts as erotic stimulators in and of themselves, so much as they are attracted to persons with full human complement of reactions who are possessed of those body parts. Fetishism is, by definition, a fixation on specific “objects” (using that term to include body parts as well as inanimate objects).
“Non-standard” orientations is an attempt to arrive at a generic non-pejorative term to incorporate the GBLTQA alphabet soup of alternative sexualities that do not conform to the majority-and-canonical concept of “sexually attracted to a person of the opposite sex of approximately the same age and ‘attractive’ by majority/canonical standards.” It’s what “abnormal” would mean if it were used purely statistically and not as a condemnation.
I would think they are related, but they are at different positions on a continuum. If you’re straight, you’re almost certainly not going to want to go gay. If you like redheads, you’d have no problem dating a blond/e if you got on well.
One can be sexual attracted to a foot. I don’t think one can fall in love with one.
One can be sexual I have been told that bestiality for some obscure reason that seems quite unfathomable is the fastest growing erotic fetish/orientation on the Internet. I suppose it’s not a single part of the animal one would be attracted to. So is bestiality an orientation or a fetish? And what in heaven is it in the times that makes it such a popular pastime?
Besides all the reason mentioned, I don’t see anything wrong with the idea of a S&M club on campus. So a buncha people with a common (sexual) hobby socialize. So what?
One can be sexually attracted to a penis but not be able to fall in love with one. Try the analogy “person who has nice foot”::“person who has nice penis”
It seems self-evident to me. If your mother hadn’t been, you wouldn’t be, and yet you are. QED.
People fall in love with people of the same sort they find sexually attractive. This is generally people who have a penis/vagina, though can also be, say, people who have fetish X.
::Peter Grifin of the show “Family Guy” walks up, says something horribly offensive, and no music plays, nor does any star show up. He looks up at where the star showed up last time, and looks annoyed. He walks away.::
I think the simplest solution to the comparison problem is to note that orientation determines gender preference whereas fetishism is simply a variant of how one is aroused by a member of the preferred gender. A gay leather fetishist probably isn’t going to be turned on by Halle Berry in her X-Men uniform. A hetero leather fetishist probably isn’t going to go for Halle Berry in the buff.
What’s the latest, straightest dope on what “causes” homosexuality and fetishes? I was under the impression that homosexuality is, at least partially, something inherent that a person is born with, while something like a foot fetish is the result of some sort of experience or psychological conditioning.
Also, homosexuals’ desires are “normal” in a way that fetishists’ (or pedophiles’) are not: it is perfectly normal and typical to be sexually attracted to men; what’s outside the norm (as in, not typical or average) is to be sexually attracted to men if you are, yourself, a man. (Although if you wanted to stretch the analogy I guess you could say that bestiality falls into the same category: it’s normal to think sheep are hot, if you’re a ram.)
I love my partner’s penis. And his feet. And his hair and his hands and his shoulders and his ass and his eyes and his legs and his elbows and his chest and his balls and his nose. . . .
I also love the way he thinks, and how he smells after working out, and the way he held me after one of our cats died, and how he makes love, and how he’s dedicated to his work, and his slow laugh, and the music he loves, and how he looks in a tux, and oh lord the way he kisses. . . .
I find it intriguing the way that people who presume to condemn homosexual persons tend to focus on the sexual organs (and anuses!) of the homosexual persons’ partners. To my mind, that says a lot more about the way that those people think about their own sexuality than it does about the behavior of the homosexual persons.
Well put me in the “the op has a good point camp.” homosexuality and other non-standard types of sexuality share one key feature - they both get a lot of grief, scorn and ridicule.
People have different ways of loving, and desiring, different people they desire and different things they desire about them. Not to mention different ways that they like to have sex. What I’d hate to think is that the growing acceptance of homosexuality does nothing but create just one more category of “officially acceptable” behavior without making us more tolerant of difference in general.
