Desire And Disgust Summary

I think the inherent issue with fetishization is that it tends to pare a person down to what they are, not who they are. Exploring pleasure and possibilities for sexuality should not stray into taking control of a person's characteristics for your own use. Devoteeism objectifies an amputee's body without consideration of who they are as a person and how they feel. Many fetish websites do the same thing, what with the way minorities have become their own categories for pornography.
In Kafer's article "Desire and Disgust", she mentions how her friends and family were disgusted by devotees, who professed their sexual attraction to her impaired body. She demonstrates the binary of desire and disgust that people often operate by when it comes to sexual exploration; for example, when certain kinks are mentioned online (to keep this forum as professional as possible, I don't wish to provide

This could be used somewhat like a spectrum when exploring new sites of pleasure and possibilities for sexuality. Instead of maintaining a strict "yes" or "no" for experiences, people could instead have soft limits, which are things they might be open to experiencing under specific conditions, and hard limits, which they do not want to experience under any circumstances. Relating this concept to impairment, a "hard limit" would be not interested sexually, while a "soft limit" would be perhaps open to having sexual experiences with, but not sure. This would add more levels to the binary of desire and disgust, but replacing disgust with non-interest. (Some people may simply just not be sexually interested in someone for a reason they cannot change. I think there is a very fine line between understandable lack of interest and prejudice/discrimination. In comparison to devoteeism, and the more general sexual desire, I think non-interest is the true opposite of desire, rather than