[toomanyrichies]

It sounds like you're saying porn either "gave" you a fetish, or uncovered a latent fetish you didn't know you had (and /or preferred not to know about). If that's an accurate read, can I ask what harm it causes you to have a fetish? Provided it doesn't harm anyone else, what's wrong with liking what you like?

[drdeca]

I don’t buy the “revealed a latent fetish” explanation. I don’t think people are born with a fetish baked into their soul.

Like, the people with the “blueberry expansion” one, you really think they were born with that? No, of course not, that would be dumb.

I think the main reason people put forth the “latent fetish” explanation is in order to argue that pornography is harmless.

As for why it harms me?

The purpose of sexuality is for relations with one’s spouse. On average, I expect it to be counterproductive in that regards. Most women wouldn’t find it appealing, and looking for specifically women who would find the idea appealing would substantially restrict the pool to search among. Also, most of the versions of the fantasy I have violated conservation of energy, and therefore cannot be physically achieved. Why would I want to want something impossible?

And, generally, lust promotes lust.

[toomanyrichies]

> I don’t buy the “revealed a latent fetish” explanation. I don’t think people are born with a fetish baked into their soul.

There’s a 3rd explanation: fetishes aren’t inborn, but they’re not instilled by porn either. Instead, they develop through a complex interaction of psychological, developmental, neurological, and cultural factors.

One theory is that, if a person repeatedly experiences sexual arousal in the presence of a specific object or situation (even coincidentally), the brain may begin to link that stimulus with arousal (classical conditioning). Or if the experience isn’t repeated but it is intense, it can become imprinted as erotically significant. In both cases, the fetish can be considered “latent” in the sense that it existed prior to one’s encounter with porn related to that fetish. Porn simply revealed what was already there (and showed the viewer there are others out there like them, too!).

So-called “normal” sexual behavior is just the median of millions of data points. There is not one person who fits that median in all respects. Even if you can’t find a partner who finds your specific fetish “appealing”, there are plenty of women out there who won’t specifically judge you for it either. Failing that, just enjoy the fetish in your own mind and don’t divulge it to your partner. You’re entitled to an inner life, after all.

Just as we have a biological imperative to procreate, we also have one to eat. But I’d disqualify any potential partner who thought less of me for liking tacos. Again, as long as one’s fetish doesn’t harm others, why should sex be any different?

[toomanyrichies]

To add: I had never heard of the "blueberry expansion" fetish before. But that sounds like it fits the above explanation. Five bucks says people with this fetish had a childhood experience where their parents sat them in front of a TV, put on "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory", and went to make love in the next room. The kid probably figured out what was going on around the same time Violet Beauregarde turned into a blueberry.

There's probably a greater-than-zero number of people who had that experience, and there are probably similar fetishes around chocolate rivers, pneumatic tubes, and little orange people.

[immibis]

I've heard of expansion fetish before; my immediate hypothesis was that it's about mental wiring normally related to pregnancy (the same way foot fetishes are hypothesized to be related to wiring meant for your genitals). I've never heard of someone specifically wanting to be a giant blueberry but it's not hard to guess that once the general pattern of a fetish exists, specific details could be impressed by various conditioning processes.

I can't think of an analogous reaso someone might like chocolate rivers or pneumatic tubes. There probably are people out there who really like little orange people but by a totally different mechanism.

[drdeca]

I think it is mostly consumed by men wanting to watch a woman turn into a giant blueberry, not women wanting to turn into a giant blueberry? But I’m not sure, haven’t talked to anyone who was into it.

[supplied_demand]

== I think the main reason people put forth the “latent fetish” explanation is in order to argue that pornography is harmless.==

I think the main reason people blame their fetishes on porn is in order to avoid confronting their inner compulsions.

== Also, most of the versions of the fantasy I have violated conservation of energy, and therefore cannot be physically achieved. Why would I want to want something impossible? ==

I’m not sure, but it’s probably something you should unpack with a therapist. Blaming porn is the easy way out. Exploring why you are personally drawn to it is the hard work.

[gosteinao]

> The purpose of sexuality is for relations with one’s spouse.

Says who?

[GoblinSlayer]

If that was true, everybody who watches porn would have anal fetish, because anal in porn is regular, but instead anal fetish has geographic distribution.

[wormius]

Sex is an older institution for marriage. Or are there all these lizard weddings I've never seen. "Sexually reproducing animals, plants, fungi and protists "

Man, I can't wait to get invited to the next fungus wedding, seeing a little penis shaped mushroom with a little tophat, and the brides dress, why it must be a literal carpet on the forest floor so long and stretchy.

LOL this doesn't harm you int he slightest.

You should like, read a(actually man, from diverse positions, and not just your little right-wing fundie) psychology book and get out of your bible-thumping bubble.

[mandmandam]

> The purpose of sexuality is for relations with one’s spouse

That's not actually true.

That doctrine has been used to guilt-trip people and control their lives for many hundreds of years - but it isn't true. People are complex. We're not self-replicating machines whose sole purpose is to breed.

[drdeca]

Where did I imply that our purpose was to breed? I don’t believe that. I didn’t even say that the relations were specifically to be reproductive.

[immibis]

Why do you believe the parts you believe but not the other parts?

[drdeca]

The parts of what?

Just because the belief system I believe includes some beliefs that some other belief system has, doesn’t mean I’m like, taking portions from that other belief system.

(If you think that Christianity says that the purpose of people is purely to reproduce, you are quite mistaken.)

The purpose of people is to be in loving relation with God, and with each-other. The purpose of coitus is to further those goals, by symbolism, by strengthening affection among a married couple, and by producing more people.

And the purposes of sexual desire follows from these purposes.

(To justify the claim that Christianity does not say that coitus should only ever be done with the goal of reproduction: If one burns with desire, it doesn’t become not right to marry on account of being infertile. Now, I think one should be open to the possibility of a child, and be willing to raise a child if need be, but it doesn’t need to be the goal of the marriage.)

Of course, I recognize that some people reject the idea that there are purposes to these things / reject that there is a telos to things. I don’t think either I nor they will convince the other in this thread.