Wetlook World Forum

"an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression"

The key phrase is "whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification".

Which means that a fetishist is somebody who is unable to achieve orgasm unless they are worshipping the object of their fantasy (which is how other dictionaries also define it).

This means that a fetishist cannot reach orgasm and have traditional sex without the presence of their favorite object (in our case wetlook) being present.

I agree with you.....i.e. the term fetishist is often mis-used and wrongly attributed....e.g. how many times have you heard people say that "Elvis had a fetish for peanut and jelly sandwiches"....or that women have a fetish for chocolates....and thats wrong cos thats a "craving"...not a fetish...cos those objects were not used for sexual gratification (not unless Elvis had the peanut and jelly sandwiches spread all over his body and Priscilla needed to give him a tongue massage).

Yeah...it is totally ignorant that the mainstream media always portray fetishists as people who are fixated on bondage, leather, whips and chains....or other subjects like feet or hair.

The reality is....there are fetishes that are practiced by millions of people (e.g. the S&M bondage crowd) that gain acceptance.....while there are minor fetishists that few people practice and people just make fun of.....and thats where we are......so we are akin to the common fetish that many Japanese have...of "sniffing sweaty armpits"......i.e. not likely to be treated seriously on any tv show.

So basically, if you can have traditional sex without any wetlook being involved....you are a wetlook "hobbyist"....and if you can't reach orgasm without wetlook being involved....defacto you are a wetlook fetishist.

What I find is rather disengenuous with the mainstream media...is that if you take the literal definition of a fetish...i.e. being unable to have traditional sex....then that makes the entire gay community to be fetishists too....yet nobody ever refers to the gay community in that way.

But look at the bright side.....things could have been worse.....i.e. at least our fetish is a harmless one....and we did not turn out to be like "Ed Gein"....the serial killer and notorious necrophile in the 1950's who had a fetish for skinning people...whom film makers used as the basis for the character Norman Bates in Hitchcock's "Psycho" and then they made him to be "Leatherface" in "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and more recently Ed Gein was the basis for the character Buffalo Bill  in "Silence of the Lambs"

MK