Fetish being your sexuality?

[Daw]

I guess in the way people play preferred game types that have fetishes.

Some people may only want to play said game type but not all people are limited to one game type, But there are studies that show certain types of "sensation" can result in reduced or increased "sensations"

Everyone on this planet is different slightly crazy and allowed to have some weird strange or otherwise labeled like/dislike whatever you'd call it.

I don't think it makes the person who they are unless they let it, In the same way people can take a single event or hobby and let it rule who they are.

 

[Daw]

Knee-socks and stockings.

>.>

This is what happens when you watch too much anime and play too many Japanese video games. You develop really annoying fetishes.

So long as you don't get a fetish for tentacles and large weapons, you'll be fine

I've been watching anime almost non stop since feb this year mostly echii/harem comdey etc i don't think i have any fetishes based on anime, Though because every second female anime character has a bright hair colour i am kind of disappointed.
Perhaps that needs to be the next break through in genetics pink/blue/green (etc) hair colours kgo!

 

[KiloFox]

irrelevancy snip

i think you're misunderstanding what i said.

i never said it was a sexuality, nor did i mean to imply that. it's really more of a lifestyle or a hobby (depending on who you ask) and the sexual side of it is a kink/fetish. we still have normal sexualities (Gay/Striaght/Bi/Asexual/Pansexual)
as a tangent that's really still on the same vein however, some furs are a little strange that they're straight/gay/asexual when it comes to RL people, but have a different sexuality when it comes to anthros. but don't ask me to explain it.

Ok, phew. I was trying to wrap my head around that and it wasn't working very well. Since I feel our exchange has been the most on-topic, let me ask you this: how would one differentiate between a sexuality and a fetish? Calling gays people with a "man fetish" sounds really stupid, but I'm struggling to see how that doesn't actually fit my understanding of a fetish. [footnote]A fetish being something that sexually arouses you, occasionally to the point where lacking that fetish makes it difficult to be interested in normal sex[/footnote]. Calling furries a sexuality sounds stupid, but I can't see the difference between being aroused by human men or animal-people.

yeah glad i could clear that up. (and to tell the truth i've been skipping over the other quoted passages)
the difference between a sexuality and a fetish? well i think i should add "Kink" in there because it seems people use Fetish and Kink interchangeably when they really arn't the same.
Sexuality, to me, basically means the gender you're attracted to. so straight, gay, bi, pansexual, asexual, apathetic, or unknown.
Fetish is something you *NEED* to "get off" properly, or to have the best time, and most pleasing... "finish"...
a KINK is what people usually mean when they say fetish. it's something that you really like that gets you horny, but you don't exactly need it.
now, granted kinks can be fetishes if expressed strongly enough, but there is a MAJOR difference between the two in that one is necessary, and one is not.

i guess using those definitions you COULD say sexuality is a fetish for that gender, but that's not really the right way of using it.
but also using those definitions, it is possible to explain why some furs are one sexuality when it comes to RL people, and another when it comes to anthros. normal furverts like me would just have furry as a kink (in the sexual regard) while those people would have it pronounced as a fetish.

 

[Ledan]

Being a minority does in fact make a person abnormal at least in that particular regard. The majority to make up what is the norm and what is not. That being said I am sorry you feel a negative connotation towards anything that makes people abnormal. I can assure you that being abnormal is not a bad or negative thing in any way. The very things that add the majority of our value are the things that make us unique or abnormal.

Does being African American make someone abnormal?

How about Japanese-American?

How about a man? Slightly more women are born each year than men, and women live slightly longer on average, so that makes men the minority. Does that make being male abnormal?

Are people with blue eyes abnormal?

Abnormal does NOT mean "fewer" - it means "not normal". If you mean "in the minority" then say that.

For that matter, normal does not mean "most" - it means within an accepted range of expected results.

You expect a certain number of people to have blue eyes, or be born with other genetic markers like left-handed, or various races. You also expect a certain number of people - about 10%-15% - to be gay.

That makes it biologically normal. It is an expected percent of the population.

You may not be trying to be homophobic, but you are propagating homophobic ideals and I will not stand for that on this forum. Stop speaking like you live in the 1950s.

Normal does indeed mean within a certain range, it's normal for asian people to have dark hair and dark eyes. An asian person with blue eyes is "abnormal" in that population. An asian person within the range of dark hair is "normal", but if it is very light (blond) they are "abnormal".

Just because there is a biological trend in animals doesn't mean that within that population it's a "normal" trend. There is a biological trend that in bird species that migrates south, there is a certain percentage that will travel in the "wrong" direction. North, northeast, west, etc. This percentage is expected, but within that population they are "abnormal". Even though you can say "Within all birds species, 20% will fail to fly south" doesn't mean that these birds are "normal".

There is absolutely nothing wrong, immoral, unnatural, etc, about being gay. There is nothing wrong with having blue eyes, being born in a rich family, having traveled around the world by the time you are 19, or being sexually attracted to wood. However, within populations these things may be abnormal. In fact, the strongest gene pools are those with a great variation of abnormal genes, a concentration of normal genes results in a species that isn't very adaptive. So it's a good thing to be abnormal, and I think everyone is abnormal in some way.

 

[Zeldias]

I knew a guy with a foot fetish, particularly for feet in stockings or dress socks. Gender was irrelevant.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Normal does indeed mean within a certain range, it's normal for asian people to have dark hair and dark eyes. An asian person with blue eyes is "abnormal" in that population. An asian person within the range of dark hair is "normal", but if it is very light (blond) they are "abnormal".

This percentage is expected, but within that population they are "abnormal".

Actually, I've never heard a scientist say anything of the sort.

Now, mind, most of my experience has been with Medical Doctors. But, in the case of blue eyes on a - let's say Chinese or Japanese person, a Medical Doctor would most certainly not call that person abnormal.

In medical science - ie, biological science involving humans - abnormal means bad. Abnormal refers to birth defects and things like that. A lot of people think that being gay is some sort of genetic defect, which is why several of us found the word "abnormal" offensive.

Now, if we're talking about bird biologists studying flock behavior, then perhaps you're right. I don't know any of those kinds of scientists personally. I do know someone who tests drugs on rats, though, and a rat isn't abnormal unless it's growing tumors.

There is absolutely nothing wrong, immoral, unnatural, etc, about being gay. There is nothing wrong with having blue eyes, being born in a rich family, having traveled around the world by the time you are 19, or being sexually attracted to wood.

Agreed. As I said, I'm weird for many other reasons. I generally embrace weirdness. But there's a difference between someone calling me weird (cause I am) or someone calling an entire group of people (to which I happen to belong) abnormal. It makes it sound like we're defective.

And yes, if you're going on "strange genes make a population stronger" then I absolutely agree. There is evidence that gay people exist to help preserve the pack or tribe. By being different, we make the group stronger.

Anyway, I'm probably not saying this as well as it could be said. To that end, here's a really good explanation for what I'm saying:

By Merriam-Webster: Definition of ABNORMAL: deviating from the normal or average : unusual, exceptional

Synonyms: aberrant, aberrated, exceptional, anomalous, atypical, especial, exceeding, extraordinaire, extraordinary, freak, odd, peculiar, phenomenal, preternatural, rare, singular, uncommon, uncustomary, unique, unusual, unwonted

Definition of NORMAL
1: perpendicular; especially : perpendicular to a tangent at a point of tangency
2a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
3: occurring naturally
4a : of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development b : free from mental disorder : sane
5a of a solution : having a concentration of one gram equivalent of solute per liter b : containing neither basic hydroxyl nor acid hydrogen c : not associated d : having a straight-chain structure
6of a subgroup : having the property that every coset produced by operating on the left by a given element is equal to the coset produced by operating on the right by the same element
7: relating to, involving, or being a normal curve or normal distribution
8of a matrix : having the property of commutativity under multiplication by the transpose of the matrix each of whose elements is a conjugate complex number with respect to the corresponding element of the given matrix

Looking at these definitions, TECHNICALLY aba1 is correct in labelling homosexuality as "abnormal" as it is "deviating from the normal or average." HOWEVER, viewing the synonyms "aberrant, aberrated, freak, odd," I hope he can see how a homosexual person could take offense to their orientation being called "abnormal."

Also, looking at definitions of "normal," I think we can toss out 1 and 5-7. Homosexuality occurs naturally so that matches definition 3, and for 4a I would consider homosexuals to be normal in this regard as I do not think they have a mental disorder or are lacking in intelligence or development. The only non-normal definition that would even work is 2, where they deviate from the norm of heterosexuality (norm being defined as "average" in this case).

There you go. And thanks again, COMaestro, for this wonderfully succinct summation.

Oh, and to Ledan - while I appreciate that it gets hard to keep track of threads after they get to be more than a page long, this argument kinda ended on page 2 of the thread after COMaestro's post. I'd rather not get into this again any more than I just did.