Fetishes

I would say no they are immoral, per se. At least so long as the sexual side of whatever fetish is acted out within the confines of a Biblical relationship. I certainly don't see anything in bible saying "thou shalt not use _____ when you are engaging your wife/husband", anyway.

Makes a huge difference if one is using Fetish in the vernacular or the strict psychological definition. The strict definition is that the fetish is required for sexual function.

That seems a problem to me. The vernacular which usually just means it is a turn on does not seem to me a problem in most cases. Of course there is a world of difference between necrophilia and a high heel 'fetish'.

heavenlessstar said:

This might be a dumb question but are fetishes immoral? I've discovered that there is a fetish for just about everything under the sun. Some are highly sexual and some hardly feel sexual to the person with the fetish at all. I would not be surprised if there was a fetish for people wearing their clothes inside out. If a fetish is not harmful to the person with the fetish or anyone else, it's hard to say that it's an immoral thing - but that doesn't mean it isn't immoral. I must ask if such fetishes are immoral, and I guess the question that would be tied to it is whether fetishes are demonic in origin or not?

Click to expand...

I don't think fetishes are immoral per se, but I would probably draw the line at fetishes which involve the active participation of 3rd parties. Exhibitionism, cuckolding, etc. are problematic outside of role-playing between spouses IMO.

Its not a sin to have a fetish in marriage. More so if its with your wife AND shes ok with it. Outside of being married I would say its a sin. For example if my fetish was butts, and I looked at a woman at the park who I thought had a nice butt it may be a sin if I am trying to visualize her naked. But in general even if your not visualizing the fetish, thinking of her is a sin since its still sexual in nature. Or as my one friend used to say when he would see a certain woman "Shes has a nice pair of <bleep>!". Sin.

Now there is a difference between a sexual fetish and a normal fetish. People forget it doesn't only mean sexual. The non sexual version means "excessive or irrational devotion to some activity". So if you have non-sexual fetish for comics (can't get enough of them) then it MAY be a sin depending on how must you excessiveness you have. More so it becomes the "idol" category which does mean its a sin.

Fetishes are immoral like having a hot curry is immoral. (ie: It isn't)

It's just a matter of taste. Some people like hot curries, some don't.

Joykins said:

I don't think fetishes are immoral per se, but I would probably draw the line at fetishes which involve the active participation of 3rd parties. Exhibitionism, cuckolding, etc. are problematic outside of role-playing between spouses IMO.

Click to expand...

I can see why would think cuckolding is immoral. I'd question that, because I don't think consensual sex which doesn't violate trust is wrong, but I don't want to argue about whether sex outside marriage is wrong.

I'm not sure if exhibitionism is wrong. I guess it could involve others seeing something that they don't want to see, but I doubt that's that bad.

Paradoxum said:

I can see why would think cuckolding is immoral. I'd question that, because I don't think consensual sex which doesn't violate trust is wrong, but I don't want to argue about whether sex outside marriage is wrong.

Click to expand...

I understand, but it is usually something ONE partner has the fetish about and can pressure the other one to do whether they are enthusiastic about it or not. I see that as pretty questionable as well, even if we're only going on free consent.

heavenlessstar said:

Thanks for the responses. I've never been able to understand the reason behind fetishes and how God feels about them. I'm only just now thinking to ask people. lol

Click to expand...

What is it you find hard to understand?

Some people have a feet fetish. They just happen to get turned on by feet. I doubt there is any more reason for that than there is for liking vanilla over chocolate. It's just personal preference.

Joykins said:

I understand, but it is usually something ONE partner has the fetish about and can pressure the other one to do whether they are enthusiastic about it or not. I see that as pretty questionable as well, even if we're only going on free consent.

Click to expand...

Isn't the issue that of pressuring someone to do something they don't want to, rather than the fetish itself then? Also long as the convincing is done in a nice way, I don't see anything wrong with that alone. The problem is when it becomes manipulation or coercion (or something similarly disregarding of the other person).

I can't help but wonder if fetishes are a type of self-absorption. If it is, is that immoral?

keith99 said:

Makes a huge difference if one is using Fetish in the vernacular or the strict psychological definition. The strict definition is that the fetish is required for sexual function.

Click to expand...

This is an extremely important distinction. Most people who say they have a fetish just mean they prefer a certain type of thing to get them aroused but can make do without it. A true fetishist essentially requires the object of their fetish in order to acquire sexual satisfaction.

If you think you have a fetish, ask yourself: "Could I enjoy, and be satisfied by, a sexual encounter that did not include my fetish?" If so, then it's probably not really a fetish.

But to answer the OP, no, it is not immoral in and of itself. How it might be acted on could be, of course.

As someone as an unwilling participant in a certain fetish, I tend to not want to endorse them.

I am a bi-lateral amputee, if you've been doing any research into fetishes at all I'm sure you've come across those of the 'devotee' variety.
*ugh, this is making me feel a little gross just typing about it...*
I have had men stalk me, be obviously aroused in public and received the most disgusting and graphic messages online.

Someone used the example of the "big butt' fetish, yes well, if you were a lady and not wanting men staring at your butt, you cover it up, just like you would your chest.
I however, am not given that option, but am unwillingly turned into a sex-object regardless of how I behave, dress or act.

So, there is NO way I could ever say that this fetish is "fine".

Sorry.

~ Niffer

Niffer said:

As someone as an unwilling participant in a certain fetish, I tend to not want to endorse them.

I am a bi-lateral amputee, if you've been doing any research into fetishes at all I'm sure you've come across those of the 'devotee' variety.
*ugh, this is making me feel a little gross just typing about it...*
I have had men stalk me, be obviously aroused in public and received the most disgusting and graphic messages online.

Someone used the example of the "big butt' fetish, yes well, if you were a lady and not wanting men staring at your butt, you cover it up, just like you would your chest.
I however, am not given that option, but am unwillingly turned into a sex-object regardless of how I behave, dress or act.

So, there is NO way I could ever say that this fetish is "fine".

Sorry.

~ Niffer

Click to expand...

Non-amputees are thought of like sex objects too? Heterosexuality is more common than the fetish that you are having problems with, so does that mean heterosexuality is wrong, because some guys treats women like sex objects?

Isn't the bad thing treating someone as merely an object, rather than the attraction/ fetish?

Paradoxum said:

Non-amputees are thought of like sex objects too? Heterosexuality is more common than the fetish that you are having problems with, so does that mean heterosexuality is wrong, because some guys treats women like sex objects?

Isn't the bad thing treating someone as merely an object, rather than the attraction/ fetish?

Click to expand...

To view anyone as merely an 'object' is wrong.
But there is a difference between 'attraction' and 'fetish'.

~ Niffer

A fetish is no more moral or immoral than any other feeling or emotion. But what you do with those feelings is where morality can come into play. If it's something that keeps someone from living a normal life or something that leads hurting yourself or others then you have a problem.

I cannot see them as being immoral as long as indulging such fetishes occur between two consenting adults in a safe manner.

Niffer said:

To view anyone as merely an 'object' is wrong.
But there is a difference between 'attraction' and 'fetish'.

~ Niffer

Click to expand...

What is the difference? Isn't a fetish just an uncommon attraction/ arousal?

Paradoxum said:

What is the difference? Isn't a fetish just an uncommon attraction/ arousal?

Click to expand...

In colloquial/lay-terms, yes. But technically, they are different. A true fetishist essentially needs the object of attraction to be sexually satisfied. For instance, someone may say they have a fetish for redheads, but would be perfectly happy with brunettes or blondes. Someone with an actual fetish for redheads would not.

Skaloop said:

In colloquial/lay-terms, yes. But technically, they are different. A true fetishist essentially needs the object of attraction to be sexually satisfied. For instance, someone may say they have a fetish for redheads, but would be perfectly happy with brunettes or blondes. Someone with an actual fetish for redheads would not.

Click to expand...

Is heterosexuality a fetish, since it means you need someone who looks like the opposite sex?

It just sounds like a very specific attraction to me.

Sexual orientations are not fetishes.

There are of course the foot fetishists, who seem quaint when you think of the creeps Neffer has had to deal with; here are people who aren't really satisfied unless they wear a diaper and their partner treats them like a baby, for example. Some fetishes are strong enough that the gender of the partner does not matter. Some may even not require a partner at all.