KINKiwis - A thread for genuine kink/fetish information and discussion

[Squawking Macaw]

Read the post again with that mindset. It is entirely dry and detached and simply explains the logic and groupings of fetishes.

Here's some honest criticism, take it or leave it, this thread is beyond saving anyway:

1. You only have two sources in your “deep dive into fetishes” and one of them is a survey hosted by an unwashed whore with a KF thread.
2. The OP is made of colossal walls of text with very little formatting.
3. The whole thing is littered with your moralfagging about how having fetishes is totally normal:

Shitting up threads with posts like 'ewww thats so gross how can anyone wank to this' is fucking retarded.
You are doing the equivalent of a nigger going into a thread about ceiling birds and saying that you don't understand it.

The only difference between you, a 'normal' person, and a foot fetishist is that you like the curves of a waist instead of a foot, you want to play with boobs instead of toes, all four of those are types of partialism.

You think lingerie makes a someone more erotic, I think them being barefoot has the same effect, the only difference is the type of fetish.

whether you realise it or not, you have much more in common with the people you would call disgusting than you realise.

Sir, this is Kiwi Farms, you're not convincing anyone that having a fetish is le heckin wholesome and normal.
This reads less like a serious discussion thread and more like you're trying to normalize the shit you're into and seething about people mocking a lolcow's fetishes under the guise of "stop making fun of me shitting up threads."

 

[Greasy Goblin]

Some of the entries on OP's list don't even make sense to classify as a fetish to me. >50% of people have a "clothing fetish"? Specific body part fetish, but that includes things like boobs? Are you for real? First of all if its over 50% you can kinda lump it in with normal human sexuality, if more people feel it than not. Second of all, a lot of them fall under "things that accent or tempt you to imagine the actual sexual characteristic" which to me seems like the clothes aren't even the point of the alleged clothes fetish. Like really? Liking skimpy clothing is a specific fetish when all it is is clothing that reveals more of the body? I've seen a clothes fetish in some fucking lolcows and it's not that, it's retards obsessively wearing/talking about women wearing overalls because they played too much Mario in their autistc youth. I get what OP is going for with this but a chunk of it reads like psychobabble "normalization" used by creeps, you commonly see them categorizing things ever closer to their pet obsession as "a type of [blank]" that contains said obsession. And I'm not saying OP is one of those creeps, just that the retarded literature is easy to use to confirm ones own beliefs. While I can agree that fetishes are more common than most are willing to accept, I reject that framing that some of these more normal things are "erm acktually a fetish" and it seems more like an attempt by fetishists to try to ease normies into not thinking they're weird.

 

[Harm]

the problem being raised by opponents is that it's only paedophilia

That's not true. I already conceded that you could render a wholly coherent (even if ultimately unconvincing) defense for it while accepting that there is some innate pedophilia for a contingency of these people. The problem I have is that, as a functional Internet sub-community, you cannot distinguish between a "non-pedophilic" ABDL and an ABDL pedophile until either they've successfully lived a complete life without displaying/expressing any latent pedophilia (aka, they've died), or they eventually do express their pedophilia and confirm suspicions, which necessitates victimizing innocents. Until then, they're Schrodinger's diddler.

So, no, my issue isn't "they're ALL pedophiles!" People can understandably develop a fetish for anything that is making regular contact with the genitals... because it's an object making contact with their genitalia. Not everyone who's realized "hey, if I put this inanimate object against my erogenous zones, I become aroused!" from diapers is also subsequently aroused by prepubescents and minors. However, they still need to understand that everyone else who looks at it will reasonably go "oh, gross, this is impossible for me to distinguish from the people also wearing diapers because they want to simulate child molestation." From what it seems, these communities believe that being very vocal with their "I love baby diapers but I would never, ever, ever, EVER be aroused by an actual baby's diaper!" rhetoric is good enough. It's wildly unconvincing outside of radical queer ideologues and libtard progressives, and even they don't always take too kindly to the attempts to worm their way into general acceptance.

 

[Soggy Floppa]

I also just want to talk about some of the fucking wack shit I have seen in my time. I have seen people using milk as an enema and squirting it out in public. I have seen the same thing but nasally. I have seen nasal shit packing, completely filling the nostrils with shit. I've seen nostril penetration, using a hook to pull the nose up to allow someone to insert things into the nostril. Latex masks with breathing pipes that go into your nostrils and all the way through your nose, past your fucking mouth, down straight into your airways. Seen people filling their bladder with random liquids through a catheter so they can pretend to cum half a litre in one go. I've seen people using lifesize 6ft horse dildos. Countless diaper fetishists shoving bananas and marshmallows into their ass because they're too pussy to actually commit and just shit themselves. Diaper fetishists putting on other people's shitted diapers, sometimes on their fucking face. People putting gas mask breathing tubes into bottles of piss so every breath is full of piss smell. Lesbian manure field wrestling. Seen a guy that froze blocks of his liquid shit to shove back into his ass so he can still make scat porn on demand despite having ibs. Seen someone fuck up sterilising a urethral sound and his urethra got infected to the point his cum way yellow and clumpy. Kneepits.

 

[>IMPLYING]

From what it seems, these communities believe that being very vocal with their "I love baby diapers but I would never, ever, ever, EVER be aroused by an actual baby's diaper!" rhetoric is good enough. It's wildly unconvincing outside of radical queer ideologues and libtard progressives, and even they don't always take too kindly to the attempts to worm their way into general acceptance.

Oh, yeah, I completely agree.
If you're someone with a kink/fetish, just keep it to yourself. There isn't a single kink/fetish that doesn't get some measure of scorn from somebody and the only reasons psychologically to signal its your fetish is because it arouses you in some capacity (be it the alerting itself or the people reacting to it), or you're hoping to find more likeminded people such as yourself to gush over it with like a fan signalling their love for X-franchise. I don't care if you're into a particular kink/fetish or whathaveyou, but is it absolutely necessary to tell everyone you can about it? This forum is filled with people who would be spared mockery and derision if they weren't so enamoured with themselves that they could resist plastering their private lives all over the place. Statistically speaking there might be some absolute degenerates on this website who are in good standing with other users simply because they don't have to plaster their list of fetishes everywhere.

There's people who simply can't separate themselves from their fetish, because that's how important it's become to them. We see its consequences with transgenders, but it can apply to anything.

Some of the entries on OP's list don't even make sense to classify as a fetish to me. >50% of people have a "clothing fetish"? Specific body part fetish, but that includes things like boobs? Are you for real? First of all if its over 50% you can kinda lump it in with normal human sexuality, if more people feel it than not. Second of all, a lot of them fall under "things that accent or tempt you to imagine the actual sexual characteristic" which to me seems like the clothes aren't even the point of the alleged clothes fetish. Like really? Liking skimpy clothing is a specific fetish when all it is is clothing that reveals more of the body? I've seen a clothes fetish in some fucking lolcows and it's not that, it's retards obsessively wearing/talking about women wearing overalls because they played too much Mario in their autistc youth. I get what OP is going for with this but a chunk of it reads like psychobabble "normalization" used by creeps, you commonly see them categorizing things ever closer to their pet obsession as "a type of [blank]" that contains said obsession. And I'm not saying OP is one of those creeps, just that the retarded literature is easy to use to confirm ones own beliefs. While I can agree that fetishes are more common than most are willing to accept, I reject that framing that some of these more normal things are "erm acktually a fetish" and it seems more like an attempt by fetishists to try to ease normies into not thinking they're weird.

Anything!

They aren't measured by intensity or focus, just whether X-non-sexual object/thing provokes intense fascination, attraction, or arousal. By definition anything can become somebody's object of paraphilia. Short hair, eyes, button-up shirts, obscenely long walls of text—anything.

Though "clothing" is so broad, vague, and nebulous it could be anything from bikinis and lingerie to ballroom dresses. If you find X-thing "hot" that isn't inherently sexual by itself, it still counts.

I understand your perspective though. With no narrow definition, there's too much dumb shit to come from it. One example: women are a fetish in of themselves to men in some (insane) circles.
Paraphilia = sexual attraction for non-sexual objects
If you're of the view that men objectify women, and women aren't intrinsically sexual by nature (or your definition of sexual is ungendered), this can lead to the conclusion that:
1) A man's love for a woman cannot be sincere, because he views her as an object (i.e. men are not capable of true love)
2) A man's love for a woman can only be seen as sincere if the woman is not sexually attractive thus not provoking arousal (i.e. a man's love is only sincere if the woman is fat or ugly)
3) "Male gaze" (i.e. men are inherently lust/sex driven, anything that can serve as male paraphilia is best avoided at all costs)

Technically, any use of the word "fetish" not describing part of the body is being used incorrectly, but the word is synonymous with kinks, paraphilia, and so on. I'm using them all interchangeably to so it's whatever

---

Him listing ABDP as "normal" could be him knowing on some level that it's abnormal, but doesn't want it to be, because otherwise it makes him by extension abnormal and the fetish itself degenerate/wrong.

This is the sort of thinking reinforced from sequestering in echo chambers or by absorbing 0 contradictory viewpoints. Since he might not willingly enter forums/chatrooms/etc with people who share this kink he's only had himself to reinforce it. People can become their own echo chamber, essentially. If you have an idea, become fixated on it, and hear no contradicting viewpoints, it grows to become a larger part of your life—too large, for some people.

The fix is to:
1) Not be dependent on public consensus to shape your moral core/feelings/opinions/habits, etc
2) Not be too dependent on your view solely to entrench bad habits/ideas/beliefs, etc
3) Humility (Being able to accept that you could be wrong is a very important and often neglected concept)
Balance is the key. And don't get emotionally invested in shit that doesn't matter (which is easier said than done, but still—at least try to).

He may place some value in the opinions and users of Kiwifarms, so he wants his fetish to be affirmed or tolerated in some way as a form of moral consent to continue indulging. This is common across the political spectrum and with both sexes. In more exclusionary communities, some people experience personal gratification at being "one of the good ones" from a group that is otherwise scrutinised, and he possibly sought that from kiwifarms of all places. Requiring consensus or needing to know the feelings of others is also a vaguely "feminine" way of thinking. I use "feminine" in lieu of a better term, but we all understand it to be soft and pliable.

If he's a homosexual, a form of "self-correction" typically seen in more conservative-minded individuals is to adopt more feminine mannerisms (hence the need to seek some kind of validation). This sometimes has escalated into full-blown transvestitism (i.e. become the "woman" they ought to be, being attracted to men) but could also translate into the adoption of more womanly mannerisms and characteristics, such as excessive empathy, or changes to clothing, manner of speech, etc.

Continuing to be the armchair psychologist I am, maybe he's just attracted to older women, and the last time he received unconditional love from such a woman was when he was wearing nappies, and so associates the two?

It's possible his diaper fetish comes from him feeling shame over his homosexuality, and is "self correcting" with some latent desire to be more womanly, and this has clashed with his sexual urges for men. In other words: he wants to play the role of "mother" to a grown man. It doesn't necessarily have to be sexual, or come with the tranny baggage, but it's possible.

This has translated to the fetish being "normal" in his mind, because he sees it as being rooted in motherly parenthood. The "common in females" remark could be the buried lede. Him also highlighting people who do it as a form of trauma-response could point to his desire to coddle those he sees as vulnerable? He knows his reasons for liking it, but to put them out there wouldn't just prompt pedo accusations, but also tranny ones as well, assuming I'm on target.


Or his aforementioned homosexuality effeminising some of his behaviours translates to him showcasing a self-detrimental level of empathy for people he doesn't even know. I do think him not mentioning the elephant in the room with regard to diapers—shit, soiling, and babies—is more from him perceiving it as tame a light as possible because he doesn't see the fetish as being dominated by "gross" people.

If this is the ballpark, then the fix to certain fetishes/paraphilias is to atomise them into their core parts, internalise the parts which are least harmful as what actually titillates, then dismiss the rest. In this context, the corrupted core of ABDL is the desire to care for someone in need of caring/to be needed/to be loved unconditionally/to be coddled and so on. In lieu of experiencing the real thing, the best they can get or experience via proxy is play-acting as a helpless baby with someone playing the role of a needed parent i.e. an imitation relationship of two-way unconditional love. And the act of "wearing a diaper" by itself is because it's associated mentally with being weak, useless, and vulnerable, yet ultimately carefree, and being able to choose when and when not to experience that feeling whenever he wants gives him some measure of control in his life—something he feels he's missing otherwise.

All kinks/paraphilia could, on some level, be a corruption of good, though you'd need to break down them individually. In this instance, the corrupted core of ABDL could just be to care for someone in need of caring, or to experience some facsimile of parenting in lieu of actual parenting. A positive sentiment/want that has otherwise been corrupted because it's tethered to sexual gratification or some otherwise bizarre non-sexual behaviour.

TLDR: Some kinks/fetishes are possibly corruptions of positive feelings/wants/actions, which is why there's such strong emotional attachment with some people.
Being made aware of this, and untying them from sex, could separate the good from the bad.
If FemboyFartHuffer has a diaper fetish, it's wholly possible he longs for what is associated with the imagery on an emotional level. Whilst his exclusion of the grosser elements could be a means of validating, that could be his earnest overview of what it is to him.
The "fix" then is to split the positive emotional associations from the negative physical acts and apparel. i.e. he wants to feel in control of his life, to be carefree/stress-free, he wants to be "safe" regardless of his own agency, he wants to care and/or be cared for, and otherwise he just wants to be doted on/loved.
Accepting that he wants these more normal wants and desires would mean getting some faux version of them via the fetish is unnecessary.

 

[femboy fart huffer]

Just like how no liberal can answer "What is a woman?". No liberal can answer "Where is the line drawn in regards to kinks?" either. That's interesting.

Nigger do you really want to pull the 'trannies dont know what a woman is' here? You do realise that 'woman' and 'paedophilia' are both concretely described in both culture and law. The line is the law. This is not hard. Every normal person agrees that the line is kids, animals or non consenting people.

Idk I'm sorry you're too autistic or contrarian to understand the concepts of the law and a dictionary.

A tranny has a right to say he's a woman and attempt to present himself that way. A fetishist has the same right to say they're a baby and present themselves that way. Those are their rights. That doesn't make it true but they are entitled to say that. They are still a man, or an adult.

From his POV accepting conceding to that possibility would effectively open the door to labelling him a paedophile, which he likely isn't considering he saw the kink as "pure"/"acceptable" enough to put front and centre in the OP post.

I do not have a diaper fetish. I simply think that labelling people with one as paedophiles because you have a kneejerk reaction to it is fucking retarded. Same old saying. Sometimes you have to defend people you hate just based on morals instead of any personal attachment. Once again I am not saying it is normal, I am not saying it is not gross, I am not saying I like it. I am exclusively saying that unless it involves children it is not paedophilic, as well as the logic that drives people to it.

We're both English. We both know how the government is right now. The idea that we should arrest someone because in the future they might do something bad is the exact logic of the government. At the end of the day everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Everyone is entitled to their privacy and rights. Arbitrarily deciding that those don't matter because you find something not to your liking is the logic of the government. Trying to label perfectly legal speech as fascist is how we end up in the state we are now. This is the same shit on the other side of the coin. It is not paedophilia. If the only thing you are into is diapers then you are not a paedophile. You might be and you might be using that as an outlet for that paedophilia. But until you prove yourself to be a paedophile you cannot and should not be branded as one. And even in that situation, you are a paedophile because you are sexually attracted to children, not because you have a diaper fetish.

Sir, this is Kiwi Farms, you're not convincing anyone that having a fetish is le heckin wholesome and normal.
This reads less like a serious discussion thread and more like you're trying to normalize the shit you're into and seething about people mocking a lolcow's fetishes under the guise of "stop making fun of me shitting up threads."

Yea I guess trying to explain how other people see the world is a step too far for the autism forum. Once again, the post starts with me saying it is not normal for a reason. Explaining how a person with no fetishes can develop them and how common it is is not normalisation especially when it is objective and factual. You're more than welcome to check every single post I have made in the pamperchu thread. I have repeatedly called him and his fetish fucking vile. I however have not once called him a paedophile other than for the actual legally actionable things he has admitted to.

You only have two sources in your “deep dive into fetishes” and one of them is a survey hosted by an unwashed whore with a KF thread.

Take that up with google then? I'm sorry I don't check the fucking google image results in case they might have a kf thread? Even then does it matter? If what they posted is correct that doesn't change because there's a kf thread. If it is true then it's true no matter what.

He knows his reasons for liking it, but to put them out there wouldn't just prompt pedo accusations, but also tranny ones as well, assuming I'm on target.

Once again explaining something is not the same as agreeing with it. You are currently explaining tranny psychology, does that mean you are one? Nothing in this post was written with my experiences in anything but just compressing everything I have read and heard as well as basic research. Also no. You're not even close to being on target about any speculation on my life. Interesting to read but I mean no speculation would ever be accurate, for it to be accurate would take a lot of genuine powerlevelling and essentially doxxing myself.

 

[Greasy Goblin]

Anything!

They aren't measured by intensity or focus, just whether X-non-sexual object/thing provokes intense fascination, attraction, or arousal. By definition anything can become somebody's object of paraphilia. Short hair, eyes, button-up shirts, obscenely long walls of text—anything.

Though "clothing" is so broad, vague, and nebulous it could be anything from bikinis and lingerie to ballroom dresses. If you find X-thing "hot" that isn't inherently sexual by itself, it still counts.

I understand your perspective though. With no narrow definition, there's too much dumb shit to come from it. One example: women are a fetish in of themselves to men in some (insane) circles.
Paraphilia = sexual attraction for non-sexual objects
If you're of the view that men objectify women, and women aren't intrinsically sexual by nature (or your definition of sexual is ungendered), this can lead to the conclusion that:
1) A man's love for a woman cannot be sincere, because he views her as an object (i.e. men are not capable of true love)
2) A man's love for a woman can only be seen as sincere if the woman is not sexually attractive thus not provoking arousal (i.e. a man's love is only sincere if the woman is fat or ugly)
3) "Male gaze" (i.e. men are inherently lust/sex driven, anything that can serve as male paraphilia is best avoided at all costs)

Technically, any use of the word "fetish" not describing part of the body is being used incorrectly, but the word is synonymous with kinks, paraphilia, and so on. I'm using them all interchangeably to so it's whatever

I'm sorry but this reads like a cope post. It says "uncommon" right there and part of my point was that it was extremely common, enough to likely be considered within the realm of normal human sexuality. Additionally, the point I was making with the "skimpy clothes = attractive" seeming especially invalid is that as clothes get skimpier, more of the body is exposed, which is NOT "attraction to anything not sexual by nature" as you're literally getting closer to nakedness as you go! I then said that I'd consider things like that overall fetish to be an actual fetish, because I mean how could it not be, that is very obviously non-sexual in nature normally. I stand by my assertion that the autistic categorization of these things in such a way that it technically classifies all people as having some sort of fetish is all just nonsense to convince normies that fetishists are more normal, or for fetishists to try to convince themselves that they're more normal.

If you go up to some guy who bought the swimsuit edition of sports illustrated because there's some woman in a bikini with huge knockers and tell them "That's a double paraphilia, partialism and a clothing fetish" you're going to be told to fuck off and (rightly) called a faggot.

 

[LarpBait]

man that's a lot of words and not a lot of pictures of 'cado's asshole, how am I even supposed to use ts thread?

 

[The Lawgiver]

Jesus fucking christ you are literally just this nigga

I'm not even gonna bother quoting the most recent post I'm just gonna quote my own thing here because I stand by this shit the more I see you post shit @femboy fart huffer

I bet you worked a shitty job at a fucking starbucks or something

 

[femboy fart huffer]

"That's a double paraphilia, partialism and a clothing fetish" you're going to be told to fuck off and (rightly) called a faggot.

You'd be called retarded. You wouldn't be called wrong though. The point of the thread is to be psychology and that sort of shit instead of the 0 content kneejerk reaction that that person off the street would shit out. If you went up to someone and explained anything they do in psychological terms they'd think you're retarded.

 

[>IMPLYING]

Once again explaining something is not the same as agreeing with it. You are currently explaining tranny psychology, does that mean you are one? Nothing in this post was written with my experiences in anything but just compressing everything I have read and heard as well as basic research. Also no. You're not even close to being on target about any speculation on my life. Interesting to read but I mean no speculation would ever be accurate, for it to be accurate would take a lot of genuine powerlevelling and essentially doxxing myself.

Yeah, like I said in my post I could be wrong. And in a prior post, I said some people take denial of an accusation as proof it's true.

Some people apply the "one drop rule" to near about everything, so paedophiles using ADBL as an outlet for their paedophilia means ADBL is intrinsically paedophilic in nature.

The easiest train of thought for people in this camp is: diapers -> babies -> some sort of arousal directed at babies ergo paedophilia.

However in that step-by-step, "babies" are put in there unprompted, when the paraphilia/kink is focused exclusively on diapers in your view.
Even still, as you've already agreed, there would—even theoretically—exist some people who do experience some arousal do their connotation with babies.
But in that instance, it's a shift of association rather than a diaper thing.

Example 1: Primary "kink": diapers -> all the things associated with them implicit or explicit
Example 2: Primary "kink": babies -> all the things associated with them implicit or explicit

So the point made by the other person is that the baby nonces would be indistinguishable from the non-nonces, and one of the associations with diapers is babies, which could become sexualised (there's an argument to be made from escalation/reinforcement i.e. continued near-obsession fixation with diapers could result in babies becoming a point of fixation, but it's still not relevant to your argument anyway).
Your POV is that you shouldn't apply to the whole what may or may not exist within a group i.e. guilt by association = bad. And that possibility is not equivalent to certainty.

I've seen people on this site made arguments or argue points that are by all means reasonable but when they[re wrapped up in a particular language, or responding to a minority of instigators, or take disagreement as a personal slight, they heat up the language and double down on the position/rhetoric whilst just chucking insults at the other person. The fix is to just not give a shit and respond without absorbing the insults. I would've got a pink triangle ages ago if I couldn't take it on the chin. Kill with kindness and all that.

Once again explaining something is not the same as agreeing with it. You are currently explaining tranny psychology, does that mean you are one? Nothing in this post was written with my experiences in anything but just compressing everything I have read and heard as well as basic research.

No, I agree with you. I believe that you don't endorse or partake in any of the fetishes/kinks/etc listed in the OP. Unless you're a habitual and proven liar I have no reason to not take you at your word more or less.

I do play last and loose with language sometimes but in my head every time I use, "if," "or," "could," "maybe," and so on, I'm consciously choosing not to assert something as fact. Most of what I wrote was just speculation/fun/autistic on my part. In that instance you were more of an abstraction for "someone with this fetish who definitely isn't a pedo or into shit". Like with my other long post, I spoke at length of the possible sources of homosexuality and even all that I knew I hadn't covered close to everything, just a handful of aspects.

Truth is, a fetish/kink/paraphilia's root cause is so broad that is impossible to truly track down. The thing I spoke about at the end is a possible positive/optimistic theory, and the fix then (if you wanted to desist from something) is to recontextualise the positive aspects that are implied whilst shunning the conventionally gross or abnormal aspects.

I brought up tranny psychology because Blanchard's typography is popular, especially on this site, but it's just one aspect, and like a lot of things usually end up, it's been simplified and the rest is usually ignored in favour of the core premise alone (men aroused at the idea of being women) but it's got more to it than that. A behavioural autogynephilic might just like mirroring or feel a degree of arousal at seeing something that, in their mind, is what a woman would do, and depending on the man's perception of what is or isn't womanly, that could be any number of thing.

Some people can come together like jigsaw pieces, made of various different and previously recorded phenomena/personality types and disorders in various degrees of intensity. (I didn't realise how much like Dr Mengele that sentence sounded when I made this reply) The infinite possible combinations is the part I find interesting about the subject. I'm basically just echoing what you said back at you, I know, but everything having a possible root and/or origin that people don't even think about is fascinating. I remember hating psychology because of how much damage it's caused indirectly (Critical Theory/reality is not objective), but even just surface level it's genuinely interesting. It's rooted in philosophy which is probably why I find it so interesting, but it also means it's should more or less be taken at face value.

Like philosophy it can help shape and make you better able to understand or at least visualise some aspects of reality and humanity, but in the end there's still no one true answer on how people tick. There's a reason why this thread ultimately devolved into a debate over the ethics of ADBL rather than the contents of kinks themselves: the psychology behind them is more interesting the kink itself.

Since trannies were already brought up, I'll bring up the Homosexual Society's theories on why trannies are a thing.

Also no. You're not even close

 

[Greasy Goblin]

You'd be called retarded. You wouldn't be called wrong though. The point of the thread is to be psychology and that sort of shit instead of the 0 content kneejerk reaction that that person off the street would shit out. If you went up to someone and explained anything they do in psychological terms they'd think you're retarded.

Then maybe those terms are simply retarded. Maybe this... fetish for fetishes has completely fucking lost the plot as human sexuality has become some misguided delusion that we're not animals. Maybe it has drifted FAR too far from biology and into some really deranged psychology.

Big tits is "partialism"? Definitely not feigned physical signifier to males of biological fitness for feeding offspring, within the realm of normal for all animals on the planet! Smooth legs free of blemishes? Absolutely NOT a display of symmetry and lack of genetic defects, desirable for reproduction! A woman likes muscles? That's a fetish, not seeking a mate that has a higher chance of defending her and potential offspring! Liking dances or certain movements? Surely not a display of fine motor control and calorie surplus indicating biological fitness! Uniforms?! That too is a fetish, and not a desire for the safety of reproduction with a mate that is well groomed and holds status! Are traits that are proxies for reproductive advantages in all other animals just fetishes for humans because it doesn't directly involve your junk?

Do you think ladybugs have a spot fetish or zebras have a stripe fetish? That birds of paradise have a fetish for fancy feathers and dances? They're attracted to them, for sure, and it has nothing to do with genitals or the reproductive act! But such things are DIRECTLY related to reproduction and mate selection because they're a signifier of how valuable, or at least how not fucked up, they would be as a potential mate and rearer of offspring. And there's nothing more sexual than straight up reproduction, obviously. Apes often waste fruit to show that they can afford to do so as a display of fitness. Does that mean she-apes or your average negress has a FETISH for apes wasting resources? The fucking wonderbread guy is less deviant than some of you clowns, because at least the target of lust being an affluent white woman in a nice grocery store was a component of his whole deal, an obvious indication of status and quantity of resources, both normally desirable traits for any social species.

 

[Sneaky lurker]

In other words, does anyone else imagine themselves as a "straight" guy doing obviously gay things with other "straight" guys, denying it to the max (they're both boys right?), but gradually succumbing to lust or love? It seems like some cliche forbidden relationship plot point, but I think it could be done sooooo right given the circumstances. Like is that even a kink or is it just some yaoi-like trope?

Tfw you try to find a deleted comment by editing the post id and you find this instead

 

[DumbDude43]

You'd be called retarded. You wouldn't be called wrong though.

yes you would.
fetish/paraphilia implies abnormality. tits and (semi) nude girls are not abnormal, they're the most normal thing one can possibly be attracted to. that's the polar opposite of a fetish or paraphilia.

 

[gagabobo1997]

If normality implies something isn't a fetish, why are feet and armpits fetishes? 99.99% of women have them, and it's just part of the body like legs or eyes or tits or ass.
I've seen studies that say over a third of men have found feet to be attractive at some point. Seems common/normal to me.

Maybe I'm just autistic, but an asshole is grosser/dirtier than a foot, yet if you said you like women's asses you probably wouldn't be considered a fetishist but saying you like a foot would make you one in the eyes of many.

 

[DumbDude43]

If normality implies something isn't a fetish, why are feet and armpits fetishes? 99.99% of women have them, and it's just part of the body like legs or eyes or tits or ass.
I've seen studies that say over a third of men have found feet to be attractive at some point. Seems common/normal to me.

Maybe I'm just autistic, but an asshole is grosser/dirtier than a foot, yet if you said you like women's asses you probably wouldn't be considered a fetishist but saying you like a foot would make you one in the eyes of many.

yes feet are more normal than 99% of the shit on OPs list

specific attraction to feet is still somewhat abnormal because they're neither a sexual organ nor are they part of secondary sex characteristics (which wide hips, big butts, large tits are)

 

[gagabobo1997]

specific attraction to feet is still somewhat abnormal

In your opinion, is abnormal synonymous with bad in any way? I can agree that it's a bit abnormal to be into feet but I also think it's completely harmless.

 

[awoo]

In your opinion, is abnormal synonymous with bad in any way? I can agree that it's a bit abnormal to be into feet but I also think it's completely harmless.

My unsolicited opinion is people care too much about being "normal" and "fitting in". Then these same people complain on social media about having boring lives and not feeling accomplished

Trying and failing spectacularly you at least tried?

 

[>IMPLYING]

m sorry but this reads like a cope post. It says "uncommon" right there and part of my point was that it was extremely common, enough to likely be considered within the realm of normal human sexuality. Additionally, the point I was making with the "skimpy clothes = attractive" seeming especially invalid is that as clothes get skimpier, more of the body is exposed, which is NOT "attraction to anything not sexual by nature" as you're literally getting closer to nakedness as you go! I then said that I'd consider things like that overall fetish to be an actual fetish, because I mean how could it not be, that is very obviously non-sexual in nature normally. I stand by my assertion that the autistic categorization of these things in such a way that it technically classifies all people as having some sort of fetish is all just nonsense to convince normies that fetishists are more normal, or for fetishists to try to convince themselves that they're more normal.

I was mostly using you as a segue into a different point.
Also I did misread your post initially and thought you disagreed with the idea that clothing could fall into the category of "paraphilia" altogether, which is my bad.

I was also agreeing with you in a respect. The categorisation of everything both mundane and exceptional as paraphilia has lead to some dumb conclusions and theories. I gave an example of how women are "sexualised as objects," which is a radical feminist perspective.

Even nudity itself has been asserted as a product of fetishization. There are people that argue nakedness is inherently non-sexual just to circle back around to arguing that people ought to be shamed for being attracted to it. There are Naturist groups who specifically want to do this. Yes, they're fringe, but it's still a view that exists.

If you go up to some guy who bought the swimsuit edition of sports illustrated because there's some woman in a bikini with huge knockers and tell them "That's a double paraphilia, partialism and a clothing fetish" you're going to be told to fuck off and (rightly) called a faggot.

I know. I'd also agree with the person calling the other person a faggot.
This over-analytical and overly complex type of cunt is a political creature who bounced their ideas of the like-minded and regurgitate half-understood concepts with authority like they're someone worth listening to. Literally me.

The reason this matters to some people is because these people believe psychology is more deeply woven with politics than it isn't. Essentially they hope by pointing out how your attraction to hot women is the result of some ingrained fetish and abnormal source, they can essentially use that to segue into why we need Communism or some bullshit like that.

Things are simpler than they appear most of the time, but some people absolutely don't see that line, just as some people can't tell the difference between fiction and reality.
Everything is 20-layers deep, feeds into a hundred different things, and it's usually all to support the bullshit conclusion.
I'd argue in isolation and with no real life bearing it can be entertaining or mentally stimulating, but complexity does not make something more real just because you can contrive a million things together.

If normality implies something isn't a fetish, why are feet and armpits fetishes? 99.99% of women have them, and it's just part of the body like legs or eyes or tits or ass.
I've seen studies that say over a third of men have found feet to be attractive at some point. Seems common/normal to me.

Maybe I'm just autistic, but an asshole is grosser/dirtier than a foot, yet if you said you like women's asses you probably wouldn't be considered a fetishist but saying you like a foot would make you one in the eyes of many.

Because people use the word "fetish" wrong, and the terms are used interchangeably but are actually more narrow.

Kink: Broad term for any unconventional sexual interest, practice, fantasy, or behaviour that doesn't include sex itself, without any particular fixation or requirement.
Fetish: Specific term for a specific non-genital object, body part, material, or situation that is not typically considered sexual, and is a fixation. i.e. the sexual interest is akin to addiction. The fetish is required in most instances for the person to feel any sort of arousal.
Paraphilia: Generally refers to anything contained within the above two definitions.

Asses are seen as a sexual part of anatomy whereas feet aren't.
However someone can theoretically have a fetish for asses if seeing or touching the ass is requires just for them to experience arousal, but it's more likely that the anus (asshole) would be labelled a kink/fetish than the ass itself, because it's a specific, non-sexual part of the anatomy.

I made this if that helps.

 

[femboy fart huffer]

Big tits is "partialism"?

Yes. Specifically finding big tits erotic is a type of fetish. Same for swimsuits. But only if you are buying that magazine specifically because you want to see swimsuits or big tits, instead of sexy women. They are incredibly mild and would not be a problem for you socially at all, but that just is what they are. If that is something you specifically seek out it is a fetish. That does not mean it is bad or immoral or whatever. That is just how it is psychologically classed. If you don't agree with that then feel free to go write a thesis in somewhere more reputable than kf. There is a difference between 'her tits make her look sexy' and 'i am going to wank over an image of her tits', specifically that the woman is no longer the object of your desire but instead a specific part of her. Once you focus on a specific part of a person's body it becomes partialism. If you look at a porno mag of someone with big tits, if you imagine having sex with that woman and squeezing her tits or whatever while doing so that's normal, if you exclusively fantasise about her tits that is a fetish.

Carry on with your example. I find having smooth feet and even toes to be a sign of good genetics and athleticism. Normal to wank over that now because it can be somewhat explained in genetics? I think that clean hair is a sign of good hygiene and thus a good mother. Does that mean getting a boner in a hairdressers is normal? Go all the way, I find diaper usage to be a sign of dedication and I know that the woman would not have to take bathroom breaks when looking after a child. Something that is advantagous for reproduction doesn't mean it's automatically erotic or that it's normal to fetishise. For a more genuine example. Intelligence. If I told you I get aroused when a woman beats me in chess you'd think that's fucking retarded. But arguably intelligence is more important for genetics/child birth than not having spots on your legs.

yes feet are more normal than 99% of the shit on OPs list

That's why they're at the top of the list and where it says 'foot fetishes are the most common type of fetish'.

I mean. Even that's still not true technically. I don't want that, that's not something I desire. That's just something I have.

I don't particularly agree with it as an idea either. Not that there's not a lot of abdl people who use it as a way to feel love and those sorts of connections. But moreso is that not just anything sexual? Is wanting to be loved not at least somewhat related to the desire to be sexual with someone? Is that not why orgasming makes you feel more emotional and kinda drives a bond? How do you separate the people who feel a sense of closeness from the act of diaper fetishism from the people who feel the same because they have just been intimate with someone that just so happened to involve diapers? There's certainly something to be said about people specifically seeking out someone they'd call a mommy or a caretaker and how that might be them trying to latch on to any lacking emotional warmth they're shown. But is that not also what a lot of people looking for hookups do? And then you're in the same spot again.

There's a reason why this thread ultimately devolved into a debate over the ethics of ADBL rather than the contents of kinks themselves: the psychology behind them is more interesting the kink itself.

I mean, that's kinda the idea anyway. There isn't anything you can really say about it, other than just 'yea I like this give me recommendations' or something, in that case you'd just go to reddit or whatever. It's completely off topic but I don't find most of this site funny, I don't really laugh at the lolcows, they're too predictable for me. More than anything I find them psychologically interesting. I think the same way about fetish stuff. It's interesting to me. Hence the long post.

So the point made by the other person is that the baby nonces would be indistinguishable from the non-nonces

My main point is more that this line of thinking isn't a diaper thing, though that is the most obvious example on kf. This isn't special. There is nothing that distinguishes anyone, including me and you, from paedophiles other than paedophilia. There's no paedophile physignomy that can perfectly predict anything. Until they show themselves to be a paedophile you cannot do anything about it because it is entirely speculation. The person sat next to you on the bus could be the next saville. You might think he is just by looking at him. But you cannot brand him that way until he brands himself that way first. You can say he's gross and creepy or whatever, but you can't say he's a paedophile. Or, well, you can, but it's kinda retarded to do that when you're on the site that is once again only famous for being so anal about getting every single minute detail correct and that people will and should call that sort of kneejerk reaction retarded.

Maybe if people had seen the photos I've seen these people post it'd be a different story. It's hard to take anyone seriously when they say it's paedophilia to want to fuck someone wearing a diaper and then my mind just pictures fucking pamperchu who looks about 40 and that sort of shit. I have not once seen any diaper fetishist post an image that made me feel anywhere near as uncomfortable than the belle delphine types, they actually look like children unlike the obese 30 year old bloke.