[Brian Kopp DPM]

That is the nature of a fetish.

Fetish might be a bit too strong:

Main Entry: fe·tish

Variant(s): also fe·tich \ˈfe-tish also ˈfē-\

Function: noun

Etymology: French & Portuguese; French fétiche, from Portuguese feitiço, from feitiço artificial, false, from Latin facticius factitious

Date: 1613

1 a : an object (as a small stone carving of an animal) believed to have magical power to protect or aid its owner; broadly : a material object regarded with superstitious or extravagant trust or reverence b : an object of irrational reverence or obsessive devotion : prepossession c : 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
2 : a rite or cult of fetish worshipers
3 : fixation

We should try not to fall into the same error as those we are trying to correct.

Main Entry: ob·ses·sion

Pronunciation: \äb-ˈse-shən, əb-\

Function: noun

Date: 1680

1 : a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling; broadly : compelling motivation <an obsession with profits>
2 : something that causes an obsession

Clearly, this is an obsession, not a fetish. To claim otherwise would be similar to claiming the current problem in the RC Church is one pedophilia and not ephebophilia.

We Christians must hold ourselves to a higher standard ;-)

[Petronski]

I’ll happily defend my use of the term as 1b or 3.