>>508670089Interestingly enough, this raising some highly pertinent questions. There is a great deal of literature on Fetishisme, and I haven't read so much, so I wouldn't pretend to understand it, but there is one interesting aspect of the Fetish, in that much of it is along visual lines, i.e., how does the partner look. When it comes to a Fetish, the partner has to look very much along exact lines which match the psychological needs of the person with the Fetish. Let's move to non-Fetishistic relationships, then looks become less important, even more in regards to once the relationship becomes sexual, things become less about looks, and the skin contact that we have puts us in touch with deep, archaic parts of ourselves. Ever noticed how we all seem to talk in an intimate manner with the person who does our hair ? Once we shake hands with someone, we know more about them. This comes from skin contact. There is a shit ton of literature regarding the importance of skin contact in relationships. Esther Bick has this key article from 1968 regarding "The Importance of Skin Contact in Early Object Relationships". Also, carrying on from that, Donald Meltzer speaks in great deal regarding Adhesive Pseudo Object Relations. Heavy stuff, but this shit determines how and why we form relationships, and most importantly, what this aspects of relationships, visual vs tactile tell us about ourselves and our own psychology. Nothing I am saying is right or wrong, but the ideas of tactile vs visual in relationships tell us a great deal about ourselves.