Idealised people don't have tails and fangs, generally speaking...well it depends on who is doing the idealising, doesn't it?
The fetishists I know aren't awkward nerds and are as aware of themselves as much as anybody else- perhaps more so than people who pretend they're normal to themselves for fear of not fitting in. I don't care if seeing them have sex would turn me off; I don't really plan on spying on their bedrooms.
A fetishless sexuality is not inherently superior or indeed indicative of supreme mental health, can we please establish that?
Perhaps, just perhaps, the way people see the universe inside their heads after their brains have done extensive processing, is not the same universe that exists externally. Outside of our heads there are lots of non-human creatures and even inanimate objects that humans erroneously label as cute, these objects are not intrinsically anything more than objects- cute is a label we attribute to them. Similarly Organisms do not carry anthropomorphised emotional characters by virtue of their existance; we attribute those adjectives to them.
Humans value human life above most other forms of life, it does not mean that human life is 'inherently more valuable' than standard.
@Ricky, yes you mentioned that previously. We should perhaps propone some controls: many individuals might also not find bondage material objectionable even if they do not claim a fetishistic interest, so there is some ambiguity here. Never the less worth some thought.
*At least some fetishistic behaviours stem from childhood experiences that may or may not have been traumatic experiences. Perhaps a strange sexualisation of cartoon characters. ;3
This is verging into freudian analysis though [much of which is batwazzedry]. I will conclude by saying that just because some people attribute some sexual deviations to childhood trauma it does not mean that all sexual deviations you come across are a result of childhood trauma.
One strange paradox for you to consider is that comments on the 'spankedfurs' group reveal few were beaten as children, which is the polar opposite of your assertion's prediction.
The vampire craze would suggest that fangs can be considered pretty desirable.
I'm cautious about accepting a furry's word as proof that someone is not awkward and does not lack self-awareness. Furries are the most awkward group of people on the planet, and may not be the most capable of judging self-awareness. I can't say that the socially adept friends that I have definitely do not have fetishes, but they seem to react to the topic of fetishes the same way: with disgusted amusement. Maybe I just don't know many fetishists, but I've never seen fetishistic behavior brought up in conversation without everyone responding as if it's shameful and childish.
Then, there is my own observations. I wouldn't say that posting crude drawings of your uncommon sexual desires all over the internet is in the best taste, but it's a reoccurring phenomenon. I think, for every popular female character in fiction, there is a crude drawing of them pregnant, obese, and tied up everywhere that can be posted. It's never really enough for them to just practice it in the bedroom. How can it be; are they going to find a perfect partner to go along with it to their satisfaction? Most likely, not. They have to satiate their urges somehow, so they involve unassociated communities like this one in their activities. You don't have to spy on them for them to expose every seedy thought that enters their consciousness, they'll make a crude drawing of it and make sure it's on a popular website for your viewing pleasure.
Real Sex on HBO is another opportunity for me to to see what admitted fetishists are like, and though they may be the more extreme and open representations of the fetish, they're absolutely the most childish and immature people I have ever witnessed. They are more intensely absorbed in the fetish, and that may support my belief that fetishes are a result of damaged mental health. Of course, there is not enough research to confirm Sigmund Freud's theories about how fetishes develop, but that doesn't mean their wrong. In fact, in some cases, his theories are definitely correct. Logically, we can assume that it's possible that all fetishes are a result of less significant trauma, like confusion or emotional conflict - nothing good, to say the least. Like I said, I don't know your friends, but the fetishists I do know of certainly seem very confused to me.
As far as how we view the universe, what people see in their heads is what exists. We see it the way we do because we experienced it the best way you can: with sentient intelligence. If we feel compassion and sympathy for anything, living or inanimate, that we characterize as vulnerable, innocent, and non-threatening, then it is cute because our perception of nature is a natural evolution.
You're going to hate me, but I don't really consider BDSM a fetish. (though there can be leather or rubber fetishes)
I understand what you're getting at here though, and yeah -- that's seen as pretty normal these days.
I see BDSM as a play on the innate human desire for dominance or submission.
You could stretch a lot of things this way, which is why I don't see a lot of fetishes as that strange.
I just don't agree with any of this. I don't think humans have an innate
desire to dominate or submit, I think they have a gay, furry, bondage desire to assign formulaic roles during sex. The dom/sub stuff annoys me to no end.