But let's take a look anyway shall we? Well if a fetish is essentially a sexual attraction to something that one is not capable of having sex with, and men are not actually capable of having sex with men nor women with women (the end result of sex would be procreation), I suppose by that line of reasoning homosexuality would be considered a fetish.
If you want to be gay, be gay. I really don't care. Don't act like I have to care though. I have alot of fetishes. I don't go spewing my fetishes at people trying to get them to accept them and tell them that they better accept my fetish. Being gay is a choice, dependent on environmental factors. Nurture, not nature.
Sexual fetishism is the need of some sort of unconventional sexual stimulant to reach a climax. In this case, homosexuality does just that. This attraction people have to the same gender poses an interest on the said being sexually, therefore, it can easily be conceived as a fetish. If a certain person finds it hard to impossible to reach a climax without resorting to the conventional stimulants like genitals of their opposite gender, then it falls under the exact definition of a fetish.
Straight or gay, do people really need to share what gets them off in the bedroom? I say bedroom, but I'm aware people don't confine their desires exclusively their. I think many rational people would prefer not to see what gets an individual turned on unless they're in an intimate relationship or have plans to be in one with the said individual. Whether it is anal or oral sex, nipple twisting, dirty talk, standard missionary style, or reverse cowgirl. Why do we have to share that publically? Why are people who are uncomfortable with themselves or their family members being exposed to others fetishes declared ignorant? I'm not saying the behavior of sharing sexual turn-ons is nefarious. Nor am I saying their should be a law created to stop or punish people who do it. I'm simply asking why it should be embraced by society as a progressive thing to do? This country was founded on principles of freedom like speech and free will. Nazis and The Nation of Islam are completely within their rights to preach their doctrine of hate in public, but that doesn't mean you have to accept what they're trying to propagate! It's really more of a privacy concern. Shouldn't people be able to go out in public or watch T.V. with or without their families and not be bombarded with what makes another person reach orgasm. Sexuality, like defecation, is a natural urge, but is it something we should encourage seeing more of in public? Advertising and entertainment companies have already saturated us in erotic media because it sells. Shouldn't a civilized people strive to control their animalistic sexual nature in public? I speak for all forms of human sexuality in that context. I understand that this whole line of argument will just be glossed over as bigotry, but is it? I challenge someone to argue the merits of this idea and not attack the messenger.
We live in a world where everything is based on scientific fact, one needs to prove that one is "born gay" through non-bias universally accepted scientific studies. Saying that one is "born gay" or has the "gay gene" is just as legit as ones leap of faith with religion. People don't "come out", they reach sexual maturity and through what they learned through culture and their surroundings, they see what their sexual preferences are. As of now, there are more legit scientific studies that go against the "gay gene" theory, and that is enough reason to rightfully place homosexuality as a fetish.
The whole genetic sexual orientation is there for survival instincts. It's something you can train yourself to ignore if you're working with a bunch of attractive people, and something you can manipulate with the way you're grown to not feel the same way towards it. Getting raped is one way of doing so. The traumatic emotions can override the desire to reproduce with the other gender as a survival defense mechanism.
And my personal experience is that I developed a lot of weird fetishes by being a loner as a kid, and each of those fetishes (including things involving other men) have started being overrode by years of different experiences I've had with the other gender and my own.
I honestly cannot say that sexual orientation is something you cannot ignore when fetishes are supposedly something you can ignore. I can ignore my fetishes just as much as I can ignore a pretty girls attractive traits. Just as much as I can ignore some unspecified fetish porn I can still be turned on by every once and a while.
Homosexuality is a fetish because sexuality is simply an aspect of the natural, innate, "survival instinct" within all lifeforms on Earth (including humans)...
Genes are programed to reproduce and this manifests during and post puberty as a impulse to "pro-create"...
This is where the animal magnetism draws the polarised (i.E. Opposite) genders towards one another to facilitate in this timeless ritual of joining of their dna to produce the new offspring of the next generation...
Nurture (as has been proven time and time again) can however over-ride the natural instincts of humans - through education (or mis-education), government policy & law enforcement, media propaganda, peer presure, cultural doctrine all aspects of "social engineering" ~ hence "political" correctness (denoting it is of a governmental (mind-control) agenda and origin).
So there is no "gay gene", because it's very existance within nature would surmount to it's own genocide (and defeat the very purpose of and reason for it's being)...
And if there ever was such a gene (in the distant past), it's very existence would have guaranteed it's own destruction aeons ago... You certainly wouldn't see it's surge in the homosexuality existing today... It would no longer be.
As for recent scientific discoveries and interference with natural mating procedures... Genes don't read science journals on surrogacy or in vitro fertilization.
So yes, homosexuality (or any deviation from natural sexual behaviour for that matter) is a learned and accustomed 'fetish'.
You do not choose to be gay or strait but you also do choose to be into feet or smoking and I can assure you that you can not choose to ignore a fetish and more than to be gay it is just as much a part of you. According to Miriam Webster a fetish is : a strong and unusual need or desire for something so it could be applied to this or about anything really. However I think the base of the argument here is if you are born or not born gay and I believe the answer is both there is period in a persons life when there desires develop I believe the right stimuli at the right time could make a non-genetic gay become gay. Also if it was the difference between finding someone to be with and be happy or not I think allot of people would choose to be gay if they could. Unfortunately I also believe that some peoples misguided attempt to "fix gays" makes any argument that people are not born gay sound like your siding with this concept it is not. I can hold the opinion that is possible to not be born gay and the opinion that that it is ok and does not need correction at the same time. Lastly having a conversation like this is not an attack on the gay community and even if somehow science proved there was no genetic link it should in no way matter or negatively affect how people choose or must live there lives. Anyone attempting to correct gays is wrong regardless of what side is right.
A fetish is defined as “a form of sexual desire in which gratification is linked to an abnormal degree to a particular object, item of clothing, part of the body, etc.” which would include everything from someone liking big boobs to someone getting aroused from committing murder and everything in between. They can be innate or they can be learned, regardless, if everything homosexual people say about homosexuality is true then it is without a doubt a fetish, but more importantly it helps to clarify the larger debate on the matter because once a fetish is adopted it becomes instinctual.
In psychology and religion there is a distinction drawn between two parts of the human mind. In religion it’s called “the natural man” or something similar depending on the religion while in psychology it’s called “human nature” and it is essentially identified as the part of us that is dictated by instinct rather than choice. For instance when a guy sees a girl he finds attractive he will be aroused by her out of instinct. His human nature will force him to be aroused by her whether he wants to be or not even if he happens to already be in a relationship with someone else. This is not a choice, it just happens. Then comes the part that isn’t human nature; his ability to choose. He can then choose to pursue her romantically or sexually in some way, or dismiss these feelings of arousal. Religion and psychology draw the same distinction for same sex attraction because, as already stated above, it is a fetish which, once learned, becomes instinct. They cannot choose to not feel attracted to someone of the same sex, it just happens. This is not a choice. This is the human nature side of their instincts and just like the previous scenario then comes the choice: feed the desire and indulge, or ignore the emotions and continue to be straight. This is often where the debate breaks down for most people because they fail to remember the distinction between instinct and choice and the whole “Homosexuality is a choice/isn’t a choice” argument causes the debate to end in a stalemate. Ultimately both sides are right to some extent, but the true difference of the ideologies comes down to the belief that one side believes in the power of human will to overcome our naturally deprave instincts while the other believes that we shouldn’t deny our natural instincts because they aren’t bad to begin with and instead embrace them.
I think that homosexuality is a fetish because, according to Google, A fetish is a form of sexual desire in which gratification is linked to an abnormal degree to a particular object, item of clothing, part of the body, etc. and this means that having sexual desire towards men which are a different kind of people to women counts as a fetish. I'm not sure but I think this has some okay reasoning.
When did you chose to be straight? Why would someone want to be gay if they had the choice? Fetishes can be ignored, sexual orientation can't. Ask a homo if they would chose to be gay if they had the choice. I bet you they would say no. If you had the choice, would you be Gay?
The dictionary defines fetish as " Something, such as an object or a nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification." Since homosexuality is neither an object, nor is it a part of the body there's really no basis for calling it a fetish any more than heterosexuality is. Someone with some moral issue with it could possibly argue it's a sexual deviancy (though I would disagree vehemently), but it most definitely doesn't fit as a fetish.
Just to be sure I looked up several definitions of both words. And I came to the conclusion, that "homosexuality" doesn't fit any definition of the word "fetish".
The only definition it could possibly fit is the following: "any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation." Bot only if you interpret the word object in a more abstract way, meaning that everything is an "object". But then, being sexually attracted to anything at all would be a fetish. So not only homo- but also heterosexuality would be a fetish. The only way to not have a fetish according to this interpretation is to be asexual. As this is not only a rather questionable interpretation, but also strips the word "fetish" of any meaning, I do not count homosexuality as a fetish.
There is a difference. A fetish is an attraction to an object (i.E. Clothing, shoes, etc.) or nonsexual body part (i.E. Feet, mouth, etc.).
It is abnormal in the same sense as left-handedness is abnormal. Left-handed people are a minority, as are gays. Lefites have their disadvantages (having to use special tools and instruments), as do gays (inability to have a baby without a proxy.) But they also have their advantages (being more intelligent for lefties, being more civilized for gays.)
Fetish= what makes you feel like sex.
Sexuality= who you want to have sex with.
Sometimes fetish overcomes sexuality and a person has sex with someone purely based on a certain trait regardless of sex, but not often. Simple. It seems like a bad way of boiling down someones hearts desire to a mere fetish.
I'm only voting for no because it has less votes so far, because I believe that homosexuality can be for a number of reasons, one of which is is a fetish. Other reasons is that a person can genuinely be attracted to their own gender rather than the opposite gender - therefore it's no more a fetish than heterosexuality (which can also be a fetish if one is homosexual).
I think if a sexual preference is based on sex/gender, then it is not a fetish. Anything other than that, such as attraction to animals or objects, is a fetish. People develop fetishes as a result of circumstances in their life; they are not "born" with it. With homosexuality, however, it definitely seems that people are born that way.
First off, it's disgusting that someone would boil homosexuality as just a fetish. It's a part of a person. It's what they are born as. Do you have any idea how insulting this to gay people? You can't just try to label gay people as just for sex. This question makes me sick