To me this is not a fetish

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rado said:
To be honest, that was a foreign language to me. But, being an Ohioan I understand the cancerous rust issue. The chevy has a 10 year 100k mile rust warranty. My first Colorado (04) rusted around the rear passenger windows in 8 years. If I remember correctly a tree fell on yours. Would insurance not take care of it?
Click to expand...

It would but there would be the deductible. I'll probably go through with it if it isn't too expensive.
 
Slomo said:
I've said this many times, if you love a person and still have sex with them, you wouldn't call your relationship a fetish.
Click to expand...

Probably because a person isn't an inanimate object?
 
Tungsten said:
Probably because a person isn't an inanimate object?
Click to expand...

Look up the definiton of love. It most certainly does include inanimate objects.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Slomo said:
Look up the definiton of love. It most certainly does include inanimate objects.
Click to expand...

Look up the definition of fetish. It most certainly doesn't mean love, and it doesn't mean humans. That's why there are different words for love, lust, and fetish.

All telephone poles are tall, but not all tall things are telephone poles.
 
Tungsten said:
Look up the definition of fetish. It most certainly doesn't mean love, and it doesn't mean humans. That's why there are different words for love, lust, and fetish.

All telephone poles are tall, but not all tall things are telephone poles.
Click to expand...

Obviously, what's your point? And your poles/tall analogy is both irrelivent to this conversation while also purposely misleading.

You said people aren't inamate objects (like diapers are), therefore meaning you can't love diapers. I said look up the definition of love, which if you did you'd see love most certainly does include inanimate objects.

Ergo, people most certainly can love diapers. Why else do you think were called diaper lovers (DL) anyways. That description wasn't selcted by accident you know.
 
Slomo said:
Obviously, what's your point? And your poles/tall analogy is both irrelivent to this conversation while also purposely misleading.

You said people aren't inamate objects (like diapers are), therefore meaning you can't love diapers. I said look up the definition of love, which if you did you'd see love most certainly does include inanimate objects.

Ergo, people most certainly can love diapers. Why else do you think were called diaper lovers (DL) anyways. That description wasn't selcted by accident you know.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. You said "if you love a person and still have sex with them, you wouldn't call your relationship a fetish."

And I said that is correct, because you cannot have a fetish for another person because the definition of a fetish requires the object of interest to be inanimate.

You can love anything you want, but that doesn't make it a fetish unless it meets the definition of a fetish. Hence the telephone poles. Your fetish can be your love, but your love isn't necessarily a fetish.

And thanks a lot. I've now typed fetish so many times that it just looks weird now.
 
Tungsten said:
Not exactly. You said "if you love a person and still have sex with them, you wouldn't call your relationship a fetish."

And I said that is correct, because you cannot have a fetish for another person because the definition of a fetish requires the object of interest to be inanimate.

You can love anything you want, but that doesn't make it a fetish unless it meets the definition of a fetish. Hence the telephone poles. Your fetish can be your love, but your love isn't necessarily a fetish.

And thanks a lot. I've now typed fetish so many times that it just looks weird now.
Click to expand...

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I thought you were trying to argue against it. Yeah, you'd be right on the love/fetish aspect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top