Kinks And Fetishes

This is not another "list your fetish" thread, I promise. I've been thinking about this lately, for some reason. Everybody's entitled to their kinks, of course, and I'm inclined to take the "whatever cranks your tractor" approach to the whole thing. This is just another of those things in my ongoing "I don't want to be a walking collection of someone else's kinks" problem.

There's something that bugs me, however. The first example I can come up with off the top of my head is the BBW thing. If a man says he only likes BBWs or that he's interested in me because I'm a big woman, then I'm automatically turned off. This doesn't mean I have a problem with guys who prefer bigger women. That'd be sorta hypocritical of me, considering I'm in the "bigger" range myself. It's just that if you're only drawn to me because I'm fat, I sort of feel marginalized. It's like it doesn't matter that I'm tall or intelligent or an avid reader or a horsewoman; I'm just the greatest thing since sliced bread because I'm fat, and you could interchange me for any other random fat chick.

I'm not just including the BBW thing here, either. It could apply to the thin man/woman fetish, the pubic hair fetish, the small or large foot fetish, the blonde fetish, or whathaveyou. Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive, given that I, personally, prefer tall, large, dark-haired men with a good bit of body hair. That doesn't, however, mean that I need a tall, large, dark-haired man with body hair to be happy. Short, thin, blonde, hairless men are ok, too, as long our personalities match up pretty well.

I think there's a difference in a man saying, "I prefer larger women" and a man saying, "I have a BBW fetish." The guy who's saying "I prefer larger women" just doesn't creep me out quite as much as Mr. Fat-Woman-Fetish. The one with the preference seems to me to be saying, "I appreciate the fact that you're an intelligent, well-read woman, who just happens to have the body type that I prefer," while the fetishist seems to be saying, "I wanna jack off to pictures of your fat rolls in my mom's basement."

Anybody else feel the same way, or am I just arguing semantics with myself here?

Me thinks, you think too much.

I think we all prefer to be appreciated for our entirety, rather than just one element of who we are. Particularly when it's something so superficial as body shape/size.

Of course, let's face it, humans are not great at doing that. Lots of fetishists out there who look for height, weight, breast size, butt size, cock size, body hair, etc.

Makes perfect sense to me. I like being a hot woman with lickable feet, not a pair of lickable feet that happens to be attached to a hot woman.

its possible that you are just arguing semantics with yourself.

I think however you are stating more of a preference.

There are some people who dig a person who has a fetish and get off on whatever results by it.

I think the preference you are stating is simply that there has to be something more than fetishes and kinks which drive the motivation of a partner you would consider a serious relationship with. That you want to be seen on various levels and facets of a whole being and not just for your physical body characteristics.

Skinny women with big boobs say something simillar when they say that often men do not see them as a person, they just see legs, ass and a pair of tits. In part it is objectification and when its consentual it can be hawt, but when it not, its annoying as hell.

I do not think what you are saying is much different. Men objectify women and women objectify men in various and different ways. I think most people who are looking for a serious long term relationship with someone are looking for someone who can appreciate and enjoy many levels of that person's persona.

I have always said that relationships, especially BDSM ones have an emotional, mental and physical aspect to them. When you limit it to just one such as a fetish or kink can do.....you run the risk of being unfulfilled and unsatisfied in the other areas which are equally important.

Compatibility is not just about sharing sexual oreintation, it is about sharing ideaology, simillar moral codes of ethic, having simllar levels of appreciation for things in life. Compatability doesn't mean the same as much as it means that you click and connect with each other on an emotional, mental and physical level.

simply put, you are fine with fetishes and kinks within a relationship that has other areas of compatibility, but you are not ok with a relationship which is based simply on fetishes.

I'm with you on this BB.

Being a prop for someone else's sex life is not really my thing, thankyouverymuch.

I get this impression mostly from sub males who are looking for a 'tie-me-up-and-do-me' experience, and for whom the only thing that matters is that I'm a femTop.

And my most recent pet peeves: M/F couples who assume that because i play with both girls and boys, it must mean that i necessarily want to play with them. There again, it doesn't really matter who I am and what I want: they only see me as a cute prop to spice up their otherwise boring sex life. Or at least, that's how they make me feel.

Oh - and the 'bi-curious' girls who want to 'experience the soft touch of a woman': again, it's not about me, who I am, and what my own desires/needs are -- i just become the prop to provide for said experience.

I think the bottom line is that in all these situations, I am made to feel like I am not a person with my own preferences, feelings, desires, needs, and all that jazz, but a mere object there only for the satisfaction of the other person(s) fantasies.

Netzach said:

Makes perfect sense to me. I like being a hot woman with lickable feet, not a pair of lickable feet that happens to be attached to a hot woman.

Click to expand...

Yes, that exactly.

Again, Netzach expressed it in a much more concise, and efficient way than I could ever do.

Ok, thank God Netz, Fungi, RJ, and DB knew what I meant. I have this really hard time articulating sometimes, and looking back at my original post, I can see this was one of those times.

And, yes, for what it's worth, the bi-curious chicks who want "the soft touch of a woman" annoy the shit out of me, much like the chicks who approach me because "Masterrrrrr" wants to see them with a woman or the couples who wanna use me to get their rocks off. I am not your bisexual freak show, thank you very much. I think I saw a post by Netz somewhere that said the only way she does FFM threesomes anymore is if it's obvious that the man is there for the two women's pleasure. Makes perfect sense to me.

Thanks, guys, for humoring me on the subject.

I don't have a problem with objectification as some aspects of it can be hawt when:

- its consensual
- and when its used as spice rather than the main course of a relationship.

BiBunny said:

I think I saw a post by Netz somewhere that said the only way she does FFM threesomes anymore is if it's obvious that the man is there for the two women's pleasure. Makes perfect sense to me.

Click to expand...

Yep - the only FFM setting i would ever consider. And the M party most likely blinded, just to be a little more cruel and make sure he doesn't even get the opportunity of getting a free girl-on-girl porn show.

RJMasters said:

I don't have a problem with objectification as some aspects of it can be hawt when:

- its consensual
- and when its used as spice rather than the main course of a relationship.

Click to expand...

Nor do I. Objectification is pretty damn cool when it's used between two people who have respect for one another. When it's some random guy on the Internet wanting me to introduce his sub to the miracles of girl/girl sex, though, I have a problem with it.

DeservingBitch said:

Yep - the only FFM setting i would ever consider. And the M party most likely blinded, just to be a little more cruel and make sure he doesn't even get the opportunity of getting a free girl-on-girl porn show.

Click to expand...

Ditto that. At one point in my life, right as I began my journey into kink (when I was about 20 or so), I thought it'd be fun to be involved with a couple. Problem was, I never met a couple who didn't have every intention of marginalizing the third party. That's not to say they don't exist, but I just got sick of wading through the bullshit and just gave up on the idea. I'm more of an instant gratification kind of girl than a needle-in-a-haystack girl.

Once I was showing some of my pics to someone.. When asked what he thought his reply was "I like big girls". It pissed me off. I said. "I'm not a big girl, I'm me. I don't give a shit what you think about big girl's.. I care what you think about ME" (Now I realize I am a big girl...that's not what I was saying..I was just saying I didn't want to be lumped in to a category..) Is this anywhere near what you were saying?

You make perfect sense to me, BB!

BiBunny said:

Ditto that. At one point in my life, right as I began my journey into kink (when I was about 20 or so), I thought it'd be fun to be involved with a couple. Problem was, I never met a couple who didn't have every intention of marginalizing the third party. That's not to say they don't exist, but I just got sick of wading through the bullshit and just gave up on the idea. I'm more of an instant gratification kind of girl than a needle-in-a-haystack girl.

Click to expand...

To me, anything that makes me feel like I would be the unpaid actress in someone/some couple porn show, I stay the fuck away.

You want to pay me to experience the 'soft touch of a woman' (yeah right!)/have your girl's ass beaten up by me for your viewing pleasure/give you a girl-on-girl show/be your walking-breathing-talking fetish-doll? Maybe we can talk. But if you can't manage to make me feel special in some way and are not ready to pay me in exchange of my prop services, leave me alone.

Netzach said:

Makes perfect sense to me. I like being a hot woman with lickable feet, not a pair of lickable feet that happens to be attached to a hot woman.

Click to expand...

You mean there's more then the feet to lick?
KIDDING

For what it is worth, i appreciate all the has been said here.. in an odd way... i've had several people hit on me for my hair cuz they have a thing for long hair... most guys might not care about that... "okay, sure, i get lucky either way" but that's just not me

It makes PERFECT sense to me, BiBunny. I pretty much think the same way... and to give a very common example, there are soooo many guys who IM me because I'm "lesbian but kinda curious", and that's all they see. They don't even ask me any of those usual "age/location/etc" questions, just want to talk about me being a lesbian and why I want a guy and stuff. It's not untrue, but come on, if you aren't interested in ME, don't bother.

And if anyone was interested in me just because I'm "big", I'd say goodbye right away.


Heather

BiBunny said:

This is not another "list your fetish" thread, I promise.

Anybody else feel the same way, or am I just arguing semantics with myself here?

Click to expand...

Ah, another 'list your fetishes thread'. (Just kidding. )

I think you're correct in your sentiment, and I feel the same way. I don't think most people enjoy being marginalized down to one specific thing.

Everyone has preferences; for me is that I prefer full-figured women over skinny, bony women. I don't need to have a full figured women to be happy, but it's a preference of mine.

However, some people are rather anal in their preferences. Some so much that they can't be happy unless they have a specific trait in their partner. I don't think it's healthy in a serious relationship to focus on one specific thing, but, to each is own, right?

I've got a boy hitting on me at teh moment entirely because I'm a crossdresser, but I wouldn't date him. I mostly just care about whether or not someone likes me in spite of my insanity, pretty much everything else takes a back seat.

Doesn't mean I don't like the attention though ;D

Drops his 2 bits

No, not those. My two cents.

*waves his hand vaguely in the direction of everything said so far*

Agreed. Who wants to be a title on a shelf of porn to be picked out for a particular flavor, rented, used, and returned?

If the kink IS the reason and not simply one of many, then you know just how important your needs are on their scale.

"No Objectification W/out Representation!"

Didn't know there was a lifestyler in George Washington's cabinet didja?
**thinks about how common whips were back then and REALLY wonders...**

twysted73 said:

No, not those. My two cents.

*waves his hand vaguely in the direction of everything said so far*

Agreed. Who wants to be a title on a shelf of porn to be picked out for a particular flavor, rented, used, and returned?

If the kink IS the reason and not simply one of many, then you know just how important your needs are on their scale.

"No Objectification W/out Representation!"

Didn't know there was a lifestyler in George Washington's cabinet didja?
**thinks about how common whips were back then and REALLY wonders...**

Click to expand...

*Giggle* No Objectification Without Representation. I'm going to remember that one for future use!

BiBunny said:

*Giggle* No Objectification Without Representation. I'm going to remember that one for future use!

Click to expand...

Wasn't that a song?

Oh, no, it was "no romance without finance". I remember now.

It is a real fetish for some (think we touched on it in the Feeders thread), but one which can be fairly limiting as can any fetish which dominates the appeal factor so highly. It is not uncommon for such fetishists to divorce their spouses if they lose weight, Sad, but true.

Catalina

I prefer larger women...

I'm not afraid of breaking them if we play hard...

I'm truly size neutral. Skinny, fat, or anywhere in between. There are advantages and disadvantages to both extremes. I guess the best would be someone big enough to beat without breaking and someone small enough to ride my cock would be best.

semantics or no, you make sense

i got the opposite before i was with A. i'm 5'2" and slim. i hated it when guys would start with "i like tiny girls".