however you like

aa. i was gonna crosspost stuff from twit but i forgor you cant show tits on tumblr. just all the non-nude vore then ig..

wait i posted tits before what gives huh. am i forgiven? am i under the radar? am i overthinking it

Fetish is like the dada of sex. I may explain

Dada (and anti-art) is about challenging what art is, yknow. When you take a urinal and present it in a gallery, does it become art? (In my opinion, yes) Dada and "readymade" art take the utilitarian, the mass-manufactured, everything deemed to be "not art", the OPPOSITE of art, and says "yes, this is art, because I have made it art." It is, therefore, extremely controversial - it is "degenerate," it destroys the "meaning" of "real art," and most people just don't get it. It's weird. How can anyone look at a urinal and think it's art? I think it's really obvious how all this relates to fetish/kink/whatever you wanna call it. We're taught to view certain things as "sexual," and everything outside of it as "non-sexual," but fetish is so often about taking what "isn't sexual" and eroticizing it. It even often centers the utilitarian (certain articles of clothing or inanimate objects). People are shown fetish and ask, "how can anyone look at THAT and think it's sexy?" In the same way that dada turns something into art by presenting it as art, fetish turns something (an object, an act, a word) into sex by presenting it as sexual. Both can have their intentions looked over or their presence ignored (any story about people misunderstanding modern abstract sculpture, people engaging with fetish art that they don't realize is fetish art, often while publicly decrying fetish art) because their existence subverts expectations for what is "art" or what is "erotic." I'd say the major difference is that dada intends to make these statements, while most fetish does not. It can, though! Eroticize what you have been told cannot be erotic, and make art out of what you have been told cannot be artist.