Is there any scenario, whether you've played in it, GM'd in it or only hoping to do it...

Is there any scenario, whether you've played in it, GM'd in it or only hoping to do it, where you earnestly think that inserting fetish content would improve the quality of the game, open roleplaying hooks accessible to other people or add genuine depth to a character?
What kind of content would it be that would be clearly fetishistic in nature, but wouldn't be unfitting in the setting, cause group drama or unbalance the game?
Why do you think so? How would you implement it, and how far would you go?
This thread is also guaranteed to double as a feedback thread, because there will be someone to tell you that you're shit and should an hero.

>My fetishes are female knights, strong women in general and softcore femdom
I guess you can insert your fetishes as long as they're vanilla enough. If the king is married to a legendary female warrior who also happens to be five years older than him, there's nothing wrong with that as long as you don't start describing her rippling abs in detail (if her appearance comes up, just say that she's muscular yet feminine and describe any relevant scars she may or may not have) or start shoving "ara ara~" in every other sentence she says. I guess in this way I've put my fetish into campaigns without conciously thinking about it, because strong women do exist in my setting and by neccessity they don't all marry men stronger than themselves.

I guess that's a pretty decent general rule for Magical Realms: don't be grating. It also depends on the setting I guess, a lighthearted comedic campaign can more easily tolerate a forest of piss than a gritty, serious, epic survival-horror adventure. I guess in-game context also matters a lot. If you're playing a shadowrun game randomly inserting a flirtatious office lady waifu is kind-of-gay wish fulfillment. Have this same office lady be the main villain, and her flirtatious attitude could be interpreted as downright mocking the PCs. Especially when she for example tells one of the party members that she can offer him a "hands-on" function in her company when he's done pretending to be a hero. It's effective because
1. You know the player cannot take her up on her offer, as it would defeat the entire point of the game
2. Hurts his pride, the villain is right in front of him and she's not even taking him seriously as a threat. Like he's some child running around with a cape.

But that's just like, my opinion man.

As a GM, I used the tendency of one of my player to screw every barmaid/peasant ever (A fetish I suppose) to put him in a situation he raped a woman. As she was crying he felt really bad but continued anyway.

I suppose it added a bit of depth to his Don Juan character and he stopped trying to smash everything that move around.

I like guro and torture and that kind of thing. I could probably insert it into my campaigns easily with no one suspecting that I get off on that stuff (they think I'm asexual anyway).

But I actively avoid that kind of stuff because I don't think it's fair to use friends for sexual satisfaction.

I guess horror settings or creepy cult/evil shit.
Like the party walks in to a fucked up sex dungeon straight out of Seven, or maybe finds kidnapped kids in a shed like True Detective

>itt people who think "Magical Realm" means acknowledging sex or including something someone may interpret as sexual.

Reminder the point of the original comic was there was zero ambiguity, point, or benefit to what the GM was doing. He came out of left field and telegraphed his weird fetish to his players for no reason other than he was a giant weirdo. The players resented this, told him to stop, and promptly sucker-punched him when he refused.

is not magical realm because he's not throwing the players into a room full of naked muscle girls who demand snu-snu.

is not Magical Realm because there's nothing gross or fetishy about a horn-dog character (though it can get a little repetitive).

and are not Magical Realm because you're explicitly trying to horrify your players. That said, it toes the line when you go into excessive detail and your players might start getting annoyed with it.

>Terms never change their meaning with time
Its a silly phrase based on a silly comic, no need to pull out the dictionary over this kind of thing.

My rule with Magical Realms is such- Make sure the players have the final say in experiencing it, make sure to treat it like anything non-fetishy.

For example, say you're into BDSM.
A fine way of putting this in your game is having the dungeon of the week or whatever be a bunch of apocalypse kinksters. Just a simple "They're in leather and spiked chains and shit. You wonder if there's something more than looking cool..."
A bad way to do it is spend ten minutes describing then putting a girl in a rack and whipping her repeatedly.
A terrible, terrible thing to do is making that girl one of the PCs, and then straddling a half-elf who wears leather and calls the Wizard "Master" to the group for the rest of the game.

There's also the element of trust and respect. If your players know you like a little leather so what? They should respect that. In turn, you should respect that they DON'T like that kind of thing and don't force them into it.

My point is the exaggerations behind the term make people think there are only two extremes: puritanical no sex or anything someone could ever think is sexual ever, or ERP. Some of the replies are a good example. There's nothing really at all fetishy or offputting about lady knights.

Yes.

NTR. Always. Since it's a thinking-man's fetish, you can expect it to instantly insert drama. And since it's not inherently kinky but hurtful, it gives people motivation to do something about it.

Remember Bahamut Lagoon?