There’s a difference between a preference, a kink, a fetish—and fetishization.
And if we’re being honest— there’s also a difference between naming something… and understanding what you’re actually engaging with.
In my opinion:
A preference is something you like.
A kink is something that adds psychological, emotional, or erotic depth.
A fetish is something that becomes central to your arousal and ability to reach orgasm.
Those are about your relationship to desire. But fetishization is something else entirely. It’s not just about what turns you on. It’s about how that desire is directed—and what it reduces people to in the process.
Fetishization is when a person—or a group of people—becomes a symbol, a category, a role, or a fantasy before they are ever engaged as a full human being.
And there’s a reason some of these things get critiqued. Not because people are trying to police desire. But because not all desire exists in a vacuum.
The real question is:
Why does that critique make people uncomfortable?
Because once you move past “this turns me on,”
you have to ask:
Where did this come from?
What does this represent?
And who does it involve?
Because the issue isn’t having a fetish.
The issue is when desire becomes fetishization—especially when it’s rooted in cultural history, oppression, hypersexualization, racial stereotypes, and historical harm—including the legacy of those who created, upheld, and continue to benefit from that harm.
That’s not abstract.
That’s lived.
And let’s be real—some of what’s being openly named and listed right now isn’t just “kink” or “fetish.” It’s the eroticization of real histories of violence.
When people are explicitly naming chattel slavery dynamics as a “fetish,” and expecting it to be treated as just another kink, that’s not neutrality—that’s the normalization of historically rooted harm without accountability.
And no—saying “it’s consensual” doesn’t resolve that.
Because consent answers:
“Did everyone agree?”
It does not answer:
What is this rooted in?
What does this reinforce?
What does this mirror outside of the scene?
There’s a difference between having a fetish and fetishizing a person. One is about what turns you on and gets you off.
The other is about reducing someone to a stereotype or fantasy as the primary way you relate to them.
That’s not attraction.
That’s reduction.
And reduction—especially when it draws from histories of oppression—deserves to be examined.
Not silenced.
Not dismissed.
Not hidden behind “don’t yuck my yum” or “it’s just a kink.”
Actually Examined.
So when critique shows up,
the question isn’t just:
“Why are people saying something?”
The question is:
What is being touched that makes people uncomfortable?
Is it the critique itself—or what it might reveal about their desires and themselves?
Because Consent does not erase context.
Desire does not exist outside of history.
And not all fantasies are neutral when they involve real, lived oppression.
Leave a Reply