In this particular situation (i.e. talking about people's interests in NSFW games and why they will or won't check out games), I think it's fairly close to analogous. The posters constantly asking about their particular fetish are not at all interested in a game unless it's there - for them, it essentially becomes an all-important selling point, just as general gay content does for those who are interested in only that kind of content. "Fetish" in this sense would be the older and more traditional meaning sense of the word, i.e. an obsession that is required for appeal and gratification, not simply "this is one of the things I especially like" (which should really just be called a "kink", but the two have been conflated with one another over time). I certainly do not intend for fetishes and attraction to under-age people or characters to be considered analogous in any way outside of this very specific thread of discussion.
Despite your intention, I have to know from where this "traditional" usage originated from. As I researched the origins of the word, I was swiftly reminded of my disdain for dictionaries, or rather the prescriptive nature often attributed to them rather than the intended descriptions of written word. Simultaneously I cursed my younger self for not stopping my parents from trashing thier massive 18th century dictionary.
Perhaps you can expedite my search? The early references to the word fetish describes it as an object of worship or an idol, albeit with varying spellings such as fetich and degrees of derogatory connotation depending on the source (McMillain's
You must be registered to see the links
[pg 188/196 in the archive] from 1911, Webster's
You must be registered to see the links
[pg 742/750] from 1882).
--SNIP--
Why the fuck do i always stumble into these long winded pseudo philosophy posts? I need to stop.
I actually like seeing other's perspectives unfiltered like this. It's refreshing being reasoned with rather than being dismissed as a monster that needs to be imprisoned or put down. What am I talking about? Well...
I for one believe that much of the laws currently in the US as far as how they are enforced are in a pretty good space though that varies depending on state. There are also many laws that are on the books that could directly ban loli and the like entirely but they are very vague and there is no precedent and they have not been challenged so its a wash really. There is no question though that even the pure fantasy loli content is potentially harmful if in an indirect gateway drug kind of way though i would be hesitant to make it a direct comparison. The whole subject is incredibly complicated as anything relating to society and free will is. Its not something someone can hash out and solve or even claim to fully understand even with a years worth of research.
There's no evidence contradicting or supporting your notion of potential harm from loli content. The ony litterature I have related to the topic is a
You must be registered to see the links
and
You must be registered to see the links
, the latter of which is glorified opinion piece and both suggest that these could be a possible outlet if it weren't for legislation banning them is several counties and states. Despite police not usually enforcing it consistantly, the fact that loli (and child-like sex dolls) is illeagal in some states gives an excuse for payment prossesors like Mastercard to completly bar anyone associated, making it significantly harder to earn a living with loli elements even in places where it's legal. I'd go on but this is tazing my attention span and Ban Hammer of Damocles keeps threatening to drop.