Anthony Comstock was a puritanical crusader dedicated to eradicating impure thoughts and regulating morality. He would have anyone arrested who dared to celebrate sexuality. If you sent anything he deemed as “smut” through the mail, then into the pokey with you. He even went so far as to have his very own doctor arrested for giving Anthony literature that involved anatomical descriptions. Great guy, right? Real partier. He dedicated his life to vainglorious belief that he could regulate something as powerful as sexual desire. There are still Comstock laws on the books in the U.S. (in case you were wondering why Americans are so scared of nipples and butts). You can see why in that climate, anything beyond the missionary position through a sheet was considered a fetish.
We now live in the internet age, where our thoughts on sexuality have (hopefully) evolved. However, some sexual acts are still maligned as “fetishes.” The word fetish is used to marginalize people’s sexual proclivities. It is my belief that some things demonized as fetishes should be downgraded to simply, “interests.” Unlike Anthony Comstock, I’d like to loosen the moral outrage, de-stigmatize particular sexual acts.
Is BDSM still considered a fetish? There have been many movies and popular book series made about BDSM. Some light, agreed upon spanking can hardly be considered outside of the mainstream. Speaking of which, Quentin Tarantino has made a career of celebrating his enjoyment of feet (and the n-word) but to call a foot fetish a fetish is to ignore the degrees of sexual indulgences. The appreciation of feet is so drastically benign when you compare it to the things like Ponyplay or Adult Babies, can a foot enthusiast really be put in the same category as someone who uses a diaper for sexual release?
Some things deserve to keep the “fetish” label, like Avisodomy (bird sex) and should be marginalized. Which is why mild sexual interests, like wearing the underwear of the opposite sex, shouldn’t be cast in the same shameful category as Oculolinctus (sexual pleasure from licking someone’s eyeball–Yeah, if that didn’t give you the heebiest of jeebies, than you and I visualize things differently).
Am I trying to establish myself as the ultimate judge of what is and is not deviant enough behavior to constitute a fetish? Well, I’ve had worse jobs. While I am not saying that I’m the most qualified to judge sexual inclinations as deviant or mainstream, far be it, I seek solely to campaign for the acceptance of the benign predilections of those who have come to find naked slappy time too boring. Should people, like furries, come to find my championing of understanding, my stance against bigotry worthy of a paid position and possible statue in my honor, who am I to decline such an honor?
So, please, treat those with general, non-harmful, only slightly outside of mainstream nudey-squirty activities with deep, oh so deep, mmmmm deeper, respect.
The subtitle of this post, by-the-way, should be “I know my mother is reading and I want to test the limits of her curiosity.” If she made it this far, I imagine she is five joints deep and very confused.