Well, I think it’s reasonable to point out that while there’s absolutely no credible evidence that homosexulality poses any kind of harm to the homosexual (beyond being victimized by bigots), the same cannot be said for fetishism when it manifests as a debilitating paraphilia. For some the fixation precludes gratification in any but extreme conditions, which can wreak havoc with relationships. It’s not mere irrational intolerance that causes some to have problems with fetishism. It can cause quite justifiable distresss to both the fetishist and his/her partner when the nature of the fetish is unhealthy, even potentially dangerous.
The question raised really has a sub-question that often gets overlooked: is being straight a fetish? When someone asks about sexual orientation, we tend to automatically leap onto queer people. But if being gay can be equated with a fetish, why shouldn’t being straight? Fetishes are not, to my knowledge, defined by their rarity in society. If everyone in a society could only be turned on by dressing up like a red chicken, they still have a fetish.
Fetish is a fixation upon a certain item (a sock, an armpit) or action (receiving pain/giving pain, being urinated on). The gender of the person is only marginally relevant, perhaps modifying the way in which the fetish is expressed. Could a fixation upon only the male or female frame be considered a fetish? Perhaps only the bisexuals are truly fetish-free!
Is heterosexuality a fetish, then?
Role reversal Loopy! In this thread I’m the sexual libertarian and you’re the prude. 
Again, I’m talking about fetishm that is potentially, even demonstrably, harmful. People can pee on each other all they like for all I care, but things can go far beyond that. As with many things, fixations can take us to extremes.
I know I know. I can sitll be amused.
But seriously to play devil’s advocate there are expressions of homosexuality that are clearly dangerous - guys who compulsively go to parks, etc for anonymous and/or unprotected sex. It’s a good way to get mugged, raped, hurt or get AIDS. And I suppose that doesn’t have to be limited to homosexuality either I suppose. Most forms of sexuality are probably potentially dangerous if taken to "extremes. "
So you’d have to explain further how the fact that there are destructive forms of fetishes separates them from homosexuality - or heterosexuality. Especially since 20 or 30 years ago there were plenty of gay men who felt thoroughly tortured by their sexuality.
No, I don’t think having a loving, two-way relationship with a person of the same gender is a fetish. People are not feet.
However, I think a preference for certain genitalia (whether or not it matches your own) does fall under the context of a fetish. If you’re so fixated on what’s in someone else’s pants that you actually use that as a criterion for a potential relationship, then you’re not gay or straight, you’re a penissexual (or vaginasexual). And yeah, I do think it’s a little weird that 99% of people have this fetish and that it’s considered normal and right. I would rather be seen as a whole person, instead of a walking vagina. Being attracted to a certain gender and/or mode of gender expression is one thing–I’m more attracted to people on the masculine side myself–but I really don’t get people who use genitalia as a litmus test for a relationship. Sex-organ based attraction has never made sense to me or been explained in a way that doesn’t make it seem gross and exploitative.
I guess I fail to see how folks with irresponsible habits are comparable to folks like the movie Crash depicts (to give a rather stylized example). The former could get off even if they changed their behavior; the latter simply cannot attain sexual fulfilment without endangering themselves.
BDSM is not a fetish but a paraphilia.
A fetishist (person who has a fetish) generally prefers or requires an inanimate object or a body part in order to be aroused. When the focus is on one body part it is called Partialism. When the fetish is for what a person wears in general, ie leather, silk, fur, etc, then it is called a Media Fetish. If it is for a particular article of clothing it is called a Form Fetish.
Paraphilias include being sexually attracted to nonhumans, BDSM, pedophilia, transvestitism, fetishism, etc.
Homosexuality can not be a fetish, simply because it doesn’t fit the definition of what a fetish is and they are not akin at all.
Fetishism is a very focused sexual preference while sexual orientation involves a wide range of thoughts, feelings and emotions.
Furthermore, while fetishes can be taught and removed from people, sexual orientation is less fluid. Sexual orientation is generally set before age 7. Fetishes can develop at any time in one’s life. If you really wanted to, you could easily (IMHO) train yourself to have a certain fetish. Changing one’s sexual orientation by oneself is impossible.
I think I covered everything…
I AM NOT SAYING HOMOSEXUALITY IS INHERENTLY DANGEROUS OR EVIL
But there are many instances where statistically, homosexual relationships suffer higher amounts of abuse, murder, death, etc… There is some debate that this is sociologically tied to the closeted and bigoted individuals sometimes involved (I am gay but I hate myself because society says I am bad so I will go out of my way to be self destructive and / or will take my anger out on others)
Just my way of saying that any relationship, whether that be gay, straight, or dogs and cats living together, has it’s inherent dangers because the people involved are, y’know, people.
Except with the dogs and cats; then it’s an inter-species problem… 
There’s a lot more to sexual orientation than which kind of genitals you prefer. Because there’s more to being a man or a woman than whether you have a penis or a vagina. As a heterosexual man, I’m attracted to women, not just vaginas. If a person resembled a man in every way except that they female genitalia, I would not be sexually attracted to that person.
What if someone resembled, nay was, a woman in every way, except she had a penis?
I was afraid someone was going to ask that.
Up until I found out that “she” had a penis, I suppose I could be just as attracted as to any other woman. And when I did find out, I don’t know what my reaction would be, though my guess is, something along the lines of, “Eww, something’s wrong here!” Though I can’t necessarily defend such a reaction.
You know, on the one hand, I can understand this line of reasoning, but on the other, there are so many props! If sadomasochism was only about humiliation and physical abuse (not that there’s anything wrong with that ;)), I should think one needn’t spend a dime to be an active enthusiast. Maybe BDSMers just get bored with common household restraints, but with all the fantasies about zippered latex hoods and such, I can’t help thinking there’s a powerful fetishistic element to the whole thing.
You don’t need to spend a dime and a good deal of people don’t. A considerable amount of people into BDSM also are fetishists for reasons I’ll explain later.
The thing about fetishes is that they are what a person finds sexy. A fetishist does not need a human being to get off and, in many cases, would prefer not to have a person around. On the other hand, BDSM doesn’t work unless you have a partner. If a person who was into BDSM could only get off when they were in the latex hood, because they liked the feel of the latex hood, then that would be a fetish. If a person who was into BDSM could only get off when they were in the latex hood because they didn’t feel that they were completely surrendering themselves any other way, that would not be a fetish. From a distance they both look like a fetish, but when you analyze the situation you would find that they are not.
I knew this guy who was into boots. He didn’t find women sexy unless they were wearing boots. And if he tried to have sex with a woman not in boots, he wouldn’t have been able to do it. Sexiness was associated with boots.
Fetishes and paraphilias in general are not associated with preferences but with things a person ‘needs.’ Most paraphilics engage in more than one paraphilic interest which further seems to suggest it is not a preference, but the result of an inbalance in sexual expression. Some paraphilias are disgusted with themselves but feel they have no choice. More men have fetishes than women, in fact 95% of paraphilacs are men. No one really knows why this is so or what exactly causes paraphilias.
Homosexuality used to be considered a paraphillia. Paraphilia is a nice way of saying “sexual deviance/perversion.” A sexual practice/preference is considered to be paraphilic if its extreme causes psychological damage to an individual. Some paraphilias are illegal such as exhibitionism, pedophilia, frotteurism (rubbing genitals against nonconsenting people in public places), etc. Homosexuality was removed from the list of paraphilias after overwhelming evidence showed that homosexuals were not psychologically harmed by being gay and are indistinguishable from ‘normal’ heterosexuals on psychological tests.
Gotcha. Thanks for the well-reasoned response!
Well, that’s what I mean. A man who would date a “standard” woman but not an MtF transsexual is not straight, since they are only attracted to women who have vaginas, and not all women. (Same goes for “straight” women and FtMs, and “gay” people too.) Like I said, I can understand being attracted to one gender or mode of gender expression over another (I am more attracted to masculine people, which includes more males than females), but I see someone being attracted only to penis- or vagina-carrying people in the way I’d see someone who was attracted to amputees only, or black people only–as exploitative and fetishistic, since you’re not looking at the whole person but only one small aspect of their physical being.
It’s a common enough fetish, being attracted to someone in part because of what their naughty bits look like, but don’t pretend it’s anything else.
You seem to be suggesting that a penis or a vagina is just an object, like a strap-on, and hence somehow separate from the “person”. That’s a tough thing to assert inarguably.
I’m just saying that physical being is separate from mental being/personality, and that personality IS the person, and that if you claim to be mentally attracted to one gender over another but not attracted to the physical form that mind takes, then you’re not attracted to minds (aka “real people”) but just bodies. Of course, I am one of those people that sees the physical body as nothing more than a very complicated machine designed to carry around the personality. I understand that not everybody shares the indifference toward bodies that I do.
Indeed. If you accept that the mind is a manifestation of the way the brain is configured, and consider how intimately the brain and body are connected and interdependent, I just don’t see how you can discretize mind and body in the manner you are suggesting in your definition of personhood.