Kinkiest fetish you will admit to.

mine is armpits...as long as they arent extremely stinky...some stink really turns me on...weird, but thats what these are

That sounds a little fun too.

Yeah, she looks almost innocent.

Well, for stormy.

Nawww...rehab is for quitters....

You’re right, and I apologize for misspeaking. The usage of these two words has been shifting so drastically in recent memory I lost my footing there. As I see it, the problem is that we have two words vying to fill a third linguistic void. “Kinky” refers to a sexual interest’s distance from the mainstream, whereas the strict definition of “fetish” involves the sexualization of inanimate objects and specific body parts – a definition too restrictive to be very useful because body parts are sexy and Freud was a fucking nutter to believe that women can’t fetishize objects because they don’t have penises. What we sadly lack a word for is the improper way that I (and half the other people posting here) applied “fetish”: There is no succinct way to tell someone that you are intensely interested in a particular sexual act or roleplaying scenario, particularly when acceptance or grudging tolerance by the mainstream calls into question just how kinky said interest is. I would be perfectly willing to call my interest in anal sex an ass fetish, but if we’re playing by Freud’s rules I can’t because I can achieve orgasm through other stimuli; I’d call it a kink, but widespread discussion of male homosexuality, easy access to gonzo porn, and the general mainstreaming of pornography lead me to believe anal sex is just barely kinky and soon won’t be at all. I’m confident that if we fired up the time machine and brought a dictionary back from 10 years in the future, “fetish” would have a much more liberal, useful definition than it enjoys today.

I’m all for pedantry, but we have to face the fact that English is a living language. If there is a hole in our vocabulary and a word seeks to fill it, should we be forced to live with the hole merely because we’re too stubborn to let the word evolve?

Count Fudgula?

Go search yahoo groups and see what you come up with.
My personal fav is fuz-goths
goths who like to dress up in animal suits for sex.

An elephant and mouse ? Ohh my.

toast fucking
you know, where you fuck or get fucked by toast... - "Brain Candy"

[Edited on Jun 23, 2005 by kratedigga]

well, i just had a dirty msn session about a ham sandwhich, so i suppose i'm not alone anymore...

hosewater urethra enemas

Normally I’d agree wholeheartedly (and I continue to respect the fact that you’re 100% correct regarding the application of dictionary definitions), but the fact that the original definition of “fetish” was based on a crackpot theory is causing me to dissent. Freud deserves to be called the father of psychoanalysis because he was deeply insightful about a variety of psychological topics; the fact remains that he also put forth a number of highly questionable hypotheses. Women clearly do fetishize objects, which already makes Freud a raving looney regarding this topic, and many people’s kinks cause them to suffer from symptoms indistinguishable from those of fetishism. The connotation of “kink” is that it’s something sex partners share, but when it becomes something so important to one party that it impedes the sexual satisfaction of one or more parties it seems (to me, at least) to wander into “fetish” territory even if the dictionary definition doesn’t strictly apply. A “kink” is something unconventional that one enjoys; a “fetish” is something that one deeply desires and may not be able to enjoy sex or even orgasm without, and one partner’s “fetish” may ruin a relationship if other partners are unwilling or unable to capitulate. That’s the crux of why I think this is important enough to pursue: It would be such a useful word (in psychology as well as the personal exploration of sexuality) if we would just admit that actions and situations can be fetishized as easily as objects.

Now, maybe we don’t need a word to fill this vacuum (though I’d like to point out that such an argument is ultimately advocating a return to gestures and monosyllabic grunts), but this thread alone is a clear case study: The definition of the word “fetish” is changing whether we like it or not.

I don't especially agree with yer thesis, but I likes the way youse uses the lexicon.

I am way too embarressed to admit my kinkiest fetish.

What the Hell did you just say?!?!

i'm up for gags, blindfolds, ropes, chains, handcuffs, etc.

a little roughness in sex would be awesome too.

Hey, no fair! If you’re gonna disagree with me, disagree with me, dammit! This ain’t a sermon, it’s a conversation, and the only way I’m likely to stop positing nonsense theories is if you tell me what I’m doing wrong.

I'm a language purity snob, what can I say? I think fetish should have it's original freudian meaning enforced.

With whips and chains if needed.

Unless of course, that happens to be their preference.

I do agree that we need a good term to describe those slightly unusual things that add to our sexual experience though. I'm not so fond of 'kink' in this usage, simply because it implys (to me) a sort of bondage element, and a lot of these things are decidely non-bondage. Like my thing for girls with buddy holly glasses for example...

Hmm...any suggestions as to new word choice?

im going to get around using any official terminologies/lexicon/language/words/whatevers by saying "i like".

i like, or i get excited, seeing a guy get off and/or get hard. especially when i know that im the cause of it.

Kinkiest...? Well, watersports is about my limit I suppose....
but I guess it depends on your value of kink.

Wishing I had one. Pretty hot, eh?