Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland
I guess I'll ask you more directly: why is paedophilia not a fetish?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland
hmm methinks that consent, while obviously very important, is not relevant to whether or not something is a fetish.
|
My a nswer to both questions is that I very much think consent is an important factor in whether or not something is a fetish. If you like cutting people up with a chainsaw, is that a fetish? Hardly, as there is no consent. If you like punching or slapping people who don't want to/agree to be punched or slapped, is that a fetish? No, because again lack of consent. If you like punching or slapping people who WANT to or AGREE to be punched or slapped, is that a fetish? Yes, because there is consent.
A child cannot (legally or otherwise) give consent to sex. Depending on what we're talking about here, you can have a baby up to a fifteen or seventeen-year old (given different state laws I assume), and whereas a "child" of fourteen or fifteen might be well-informed enough and sexually mature and aware enough to agree to have sex, they are not legally allowed to, therefore there is no consent, as seen in the eyes of the law. Therefore having sex with an underage person is rape, or as you guys put it, statutory rape, and so no fetish by any stretch. For much younger children the question does not even arise, as they have no idea what's going on when a man says he "wants to give them a treat" or "show them something". Urgh.
So consent is most definitely important, and I believe separates a fetish from an illegal act.
Also, I should add that your contention that I dislike paedophilia and don't consider it a fetish because it's "yucky" (your word) is frankly ridiculous and also wrong. I have I believe outlined my reasons above, and they hinge on the concept and importance of consent. Plenty of things are "yucky" - bukkake, corprophagia, bestiality etc - but that doesn't mean I don't consider them fetishes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls
The only fetish you mentioned is blood play and even that is questionable. They are kinks. Fetishes focus on specific object: feet, breasts, inanimate objects..
In my experience people who use fire, blood, and knives are not turned on by those objects. Arsonists can have fire fetishes, not your average kinky person. That is just another facet of sub/dom relationships. I'm not even sure I'd consider pedophilia a fetish, it seems more like a taboo sexual preference.
|
I have no idea where this came from. BDSM and so forth
are fetishes, but I don't know what the difference is between that and a kink or kinks I must admit. I've always assumed the one to be the same as the other. I think that's more a case of semantics. I'm not enough in the know to be sure, but I've always found them to be more or less interchangeable. Also, I'm not so sure the OP was making a distinction between the two, but I'd have to re-read the post.
Edit: okay I re-read it: you're right. She is making a specific case for fetishes as opposed to kinks. My bad.