I mean, I’m comfortable considering the folk you’re citing outliers. They may all be outlying the same creepy way, but they’re not part of our distribution curve dammit
“material object regarded with awe as having mysterious powers or being the representative of a deity that may be worshipped through it,” 1610s, fatisso, from Portuguese feitiço “charm, sorcery, allurement,” noun use of an adjective meaning “artificial.”
which eventually morphed into:
Figurative sense of “something irrationally revered, object of blind devotion” appears to be an extension made by the New England Transcendentalists (1837). For sexual sense (1897), see fetishism.
Which…checks out in terms of our current understandings of the word. (But still is used as an object in magic in other circles). Which, if referring to a foot as an object of obsession…definitely “more” valid than saying “furry fetish” which is more of a “kink”.
In the sexual sense a fetish is delineated from a kink in that with a fetish it’s often considered necessary for attraction/sexual satisfaction to the haver. So strictly a person with a sadomasochism fetish can’t get off without receiving or administering pain, whereas a person with a sadomasochism kink will sexually enjoy it, but can also get off from vanilla sex.
But they’re often used interchangeably. Also within bdsm kinks can be nonsexual, with some folks not getting off on it, but still enjoying it.
Gotta love the footies. They’re harmless and locked in. At the rabbit hole that is sexual fetishes, they just hang around the entrance… looking down.
I don’t think about feet at all, until a story like this pops up.
You perfectly summed up footies, normies love to bug them for the weirdness but honestly, pretty wholesome all told.
Not wholesome
Just not weird in a way interesting enough
They are not all wholesome. There are bad actors.
Some Non-Consensual Examples:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=NI_2xKI8hk4
https://youtube.com/watch?v=YaU81ryR8kY
https://youtube.com/watch?v=FUuyoQqV9JE
I mean, I’m comfortable considering the folk you’re citing outliers. They may all be outlying the same creepy way, but they’re not part of our distribution curve dammit
Hey look everyone, someone found anecdotal evidence of something. Therefore that applies to literally everyone!
They said everyone, I showed that it isn’t everyone. I am sorry for your reading comprehension.
I don’t yuk anyone’s yum except for furries. That shit is weird
On the one hand, I agree, furries don’t make a lot of sense.
On the other hand, I’d totally fuck a dragon. Assuming we could figure out the logistics.
Donkey?
You’ll be figuring out the logistics all night.
Furries suddenly made a lot of sense to me when someone told me a lot of them are surgeons.
I think I’d find regular Humans pretty repulsive after cutting them open and watching them die and cutting out massive tumours and shit.
Like animals are less repulsive after cut open
Yeah, but human and animal surgeons are two separate fields. I’d imagine most veterinary surgeons are not furries.
Yeah the vets that also operate on criminals are fuuuuucked
I’ve never met a furry that’s a surgeon. Most of us seem to be in IT and logistics.
Yeah. Google RainFurrest 2015.
I don’t think I want to
Wasn’t that a convention mostly for those who were banned from other conventions?
I have this image of elmur fudd waiting for bugs bunny just so he can look at his feet
The secret is out.
You’re no defending foot fetishists in my comment section you are not
🏴
That sounds like description of a cave diver.
I’m gonna love that metaphor forever
I mean, the word «fetish» itself is named after feet, so they’re literally the OG.Looks like I was misinformed about that!
Going to acktually on you here but…
It began as:
“material object regarded with awe as having mysterious powers or being the representative of a deity that may be worshipped through it,” 1610s, fatisso, from Portuguese feitiço “charm, sorcery, allurement,” noun use of an adjective meaning “artificial.”
which eventually morphed into:
Figurative sense of “something irrationally revered, object of blind devotion” appears to be an extension made by the New England Transcendentalists (1837). For sexual sense (1897), see fetishism.
Which…checks out in terms of our current understandings of the word. (But still is used as an object in magic in other circles). Which, if referring to a foot as an object of obsession…definitely “more” valid than saying “furry fetish” which is more of a “kink”.
In the sexual sense a fetish is delineated from a kink in that with a fetish it’s often considered necessary for attraction/sexual satisfaction to the haver. So strictly a person with a sadomasochism fetish can’t get off without receiving or administering pain, whereas a person with a sadomasochism kink will sexually enjoy it, but can also get off from vanilla sex.
But they’re often used interchangeably. Also within bdsm kinks can be nonsexual, with some folks not getting off on it, but still enjoying it.
I don’t think that’s correct. It seems like it originated from a magical context: something that puts a sexual “spell” on you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_fetishism#History