Open Question: Does fetish have to mean grotesque?

[feedcrawler]

I don't know if it's just me, but it seems like everything that is labeled "fetish", describes a sexual fascination with something that is as aberrant as possible. Should my fascination be termed something else if I don't like it huge, scary, or ugly? For around a decade now, I have been very comfortable with the idea that I have a hand fetish. When "hand fetish" finally starts getting Google hits, everyone is talking about how people with a "hand fetish" lust over these enormous appendages.At one time, I could have swore Wikipedia had a picture of these gorgeous feminine hands with this violet-silvery painted fingernails. Now it's gone and the article is much shorter than I thought I remembered. I can't think of any other site that I would have been picturing in my mind, and my memory is usually very good, so I'd say it's been changed. What a shame.For what it's worth, if you happen to be reading this and you are curious about hand fetishism... I would like to shout loud and clear that I am extremely attracted to soft feminine hands. Too big and they look masculine to me. Long and slender is fine. Small is fine. Nails are fantastic. Clean and not scarred is essential. My attraction is to the astounding array of shapes and the minute subtle movements that a woman can make with her hands. I like nice wedding sets, too.Someone that's in to beauty post something on the Internet. So much for "you can find anything".But what do you think? Does it have to be 3xtreme torture, furry fat gay men, and gargantuan feet to be fetish? Must we svffocate in head to toe tough sticky clothes, smell stinky underwear, stuff objects bigger than us inside of us? Must it be grotesque and 3xtreme to be called a fetish? Can't we delight in the soft femininity of beautiful women, or anything in particular about men and still be sexually specific, sexually adventurous, sexually aroused?

More...