Posted by cuddlemonkey on August 23, 2008 at 20:21 [72.131.5.85]
In Reply to: Re: Ageplaying as regression? posted by Lucy Peters on August 23, 2008 at 15:15
I'm not sure exactly when 'fetish' came to exclusively mean sexualized objects, but I disagree entirely with that limitation. Fetishism in the more classical sense is the attribution of transformative or magical powers to inanimate objects. As a sexual fetish this of course relates to the power of arousal, but it's just a narrow subset of a larger belief in the ability of these objects to channel energy that isn't normally accessible to us.
Thus, while I agree with Tom that ageplay is all about fetish, fetish encompasses more than sexuality. When we ageplay, we place belief in the power of fetish objects (ab clothing, toys, pacis, diapers, etc) to transform our consciousness and bring us into a different state of being. Sure, one of those states may be sexual arousal, but there is also the heightened intimacy and caring that someone mentioned, the recreation of a child-like mindset or innocence, feelings of security, relaxation, and probably a million other permutations. We seek out the fetish objects that intensify and enhance these feelings.
Honestly, fetish vs regression, sex vs security and other such dichotomies just smack of sex-negativity to me, along the lines of 'oh, i'm not a pervert like THOSE ppl who are aroused by doing the same things i do.' A way to feel less weird about it maybe? There is so much secrecy, shame and guilt over fetishism (sexual or otherwise) in our culture, and IME the communities that form around such activities haven't really managed to escape the value judgments of society at large. I think it's something we should guard against. The more subdivisions we make among ourselves, the less interesting discussions like this are going to be.
Email: littlebear_lucky@yahoo.com