FUCK THIS FETISH BULLSHIT

[vsa7a]

instead...meet the new model for tickling....

PARTIALISM 😀

 

[chuckle]

who? what?

 

[insite]

pretty misleading title, tough...

 

[Maestro1874]

I guess they should start naming tickling videos "Documentary about cheese" as well...

 

[vsa7a]

I guess they should start naming tickling videos "Documentary about cheese" as well...

no but since fetishism has a bad rep and is ideologically stupid since it is obsession on inanimate objects such as tinkering with locks. tickling alone needs a remodel and rework. that fetish 'sickly ridiculous' thing has got to go.

basically deglamorize 'fetish' and go define 'partialism' in the dictionary ;p

 

[Artoo]

fetishism has a bad rep

It does? 😈

 

[vsa7a]

ahem make that 'fetish' and 'fetishism' have a shitty rep

 

[Artoo]

ahem make that 'fetish' and 'fetishism' have a shitty rep

They do? 😈

 

[rhiannon]

I thought it was hip right now to have a fetish.

 

[Artoo]

I thought it was hip right now to have a fetish.

I thought so too.
It's like, the new black, or something. 😎

 

[rhiannon]

The new pink actually. That's why I have one! 😀

 

[Artoo]

The new pink actually. That's why I have one! 😀

I bought mine from www.fetishesarecoolandyoushouldhaveone.com.

 

[Soda Bobinski]

I thought it was hip right now to have a fetish.

Especially if you have a fetish for hips.

 

[tickler4u2]

Please don't bash him. I know where he or she is coming from. In psychological terms, a fetish is sexual attraction to an inanimate object (ex. shoes) while partialism is sexual attraction or activity directed to a non-sexual body part. The only problem I have is who decided which body parts are sexual and which are not. I've read so much new literature on fetishes and partialism and psychologists find that more people have these desires than is generally realized. The new thinking is that all sexuality is on a spectrum, nothing is considered "abnormal" unless it causes harm to a partner or is non-consensual.

 

[Tickler15]

No he is correct...but we are not to blame, its not our fault. We are as God made us....those people in the Psych world are just out of control.

 

[solescratcher99]

'Tis true, 'tis true.

Actually, tickling doesn't even fall into a DSM category. Foot "fetishism" doesn't technically fall into any category either. Both are actually a particularism or a partialism. It only makes logical sense that the word be abandoned.

Of course, the next version of the DSM will say that non-animate and animate objects which arose interest are classified as "fetish" just to stay within the present zeitgeist and cultural norms. In which case, everything will be a "fetish". lol

Oh man, those psychologists have backed themselves into a corner this time. Trying to define normality... give me a break! They're still limping in Freud's old shoes. (Freud had a foot fetish, BTW)

No, I'm joking. Not sure what will happen, but they've definitely got their work cut out for them with us. They need to find a way to makes us abnormal, but come up with a word that's got that abnormally catchy quality like "fetish". Partialism doesn't do it, so it has to be something else.

I guarantee they will come up with a term to describe us, but it will not be partialism. Its too neutral and ontologically objective for their taste. I guarantee this! Anyone willing to place a wager on this?

 

[tickler4u2]

The problem for the medical community is that they can't explain why most of us still have "normal" sexual interest that co-exists with sexual interests out of the mainstream. The traditional view of a fetishist is of an introverted, anti-social person unable to connect with others and unable to have "normal" sex. They are realizing that that is not true. Just as many who don't have a fetish have problems connecting with others. I think they needed to come up with another term to explain people like us (partialism) because they realized it's a lot more complicated than they realized. We are all normal and were probably just born with this tendency.

 

[GEORGIATKLER]

too busy walking the walk to talk the talk

Get your "I'M PARTIAL TO PARTIALISM'' t-shirts & bumper stickers now....sorry, but at full price. 😉 I like to tickle a brunette, curvy girl wearing nylons. I like to tickle her through her "peep sides" pumps. If she smells like peporoni pizza, so much the better. My shrink is now charging me double due to the extra file labels. A label is just there to let you know you have your shirt/pants on inside out. With feet or shoes, you snooze you lose!!!

 

[msntkl41]

LOL! Maybe we analyze ourselves too much here. Maybe we should just have fun!

 

[OmahaTickler]

Fuck
This
Labeling
Bullshit

 

[siftus]

Always thought "fetishes" were those leetle cute animals carved out of stone.

Kinda got confused when that thing that made my weiner stupid huge was also attributed to adorable necklace animales.

lol.

Partialism is a decent term, but sounds religious or political.

I'm going to go with Ficklism as we Fetishists are just too damn detailed and picky.

~s

 

[Artoo]

Actually, tickling doesn't even fall into a DSM category.

Who says?

Anyway, at this point we're debating semantics; all it boils down to is that some people on this site don't like the word fetish; it drums up connotations of creepy and weird (though having seen some of the topics on these boards, I sometimes think it's an entirely appropritate label 😎)

I rarely refer to my love of tickling as a fetish; I have done, and still do occasionally. But it depends on who I'm talking to, and whether they'll take the word fetish in a bad way or not (most often, they don't). I might call it a kink, or interest, or whatever. It doesn't matter what I call it, because the bottom line is that it turns me on. That is what people are going to take issue with, if they take issue at all that is.

Besides, tickling partialism is such a shit name for a kink.

 

[LD_Tickler]

Isn't the technical term for dependence on a typically non-sexual action for arousal or gratification a "paraphilia?"

In either case, the term fetish is so widely understood as applicable to actions as much as objects that it just seems silly to insist that we stop using the word. The specific meanings of words are allowed to change. Insisting that we stick to an outdated though technically correct definition of a word (which is odd, considering that the english language is a bastard mutt language with no overseeing body) in the face of a perfectly fine, and already widely assumed evolution is dumb. The precision of language should not stand in the way of communication.

 

[lordfluffyhat]

I don't think too many people get caught up in the definitions, at least in in this century, no-one really cares if the dictionary/psychological lexicon says fetish = abnormal.

Actually, now that I think about it, I do care to some extent - I get a kick out of the taboo of being a "fetishist" but I don't suffer any of the negative connotations 😀

 

[solescratcher99]

Who says?

Anyway, at this point we're debating semantics; all it boils down to is that some people on this site don't like the word fetish; it drums up connotations of creepy and weird (though having seen some of the topics on these boards, I sometimes think it's an entirely appropritate label 😎)

I rarely refer to my love of tickling as a fetish; I have done, and still do occasionally. But it depends on who I'm talking to, and whether they'll take the word fetish in a bad way or not (most often, they don't). I might call it a kink, or interest, or whatever. It doesn't matter what I call it, because the bottom line is that it turns me on. That is what people are going to take issue with, if they take issue at all that is.

Besides, tickling partialism is such a shit name for a kink.

Like you, I rarely refer to love as a "fetish". It seems abusive when I use this term, you see? Still, this whole conversation preaches the almighty DSM my friend! In the U.S., this is the holy grail of normality. Many people would not even relate to the level you're speaking at, so we have to deny the word "fetish" in order to keep our normal civilized place among others. It doesn't matter how you perceive it over in Europe, in America, its a very different topic simply because of the "label".

We have a very judgmental attitude towards "others". We label some histrionic personality disorders, narcissistic personality disorders and passive aggressive personality disorder. We do this not because we really want to understand the other person's point of view, but because we're so comfortable with fitting people into categories and getting on with our closed way of understanding. Ya' know what I mean?

This is what the whole U.S. beef is about. I think Derrida sums up the American attitude towards how we like to see and approach labels nicely in this video. Its almost as if we don't want to really understand the meaning behind the words because we're so obsessed with fitting this 'label': <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/u2j578jTBCY&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/u2j578jTBCY&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>