Sometimes a society can absorb a fetish into its culture so that it is no longer perceived as a fetish, but merely as a normal sexual desire; for example the commonplace desire for lingerie, or women removing body hair. I consider hair, breasts, asses and legs in this category also.

"Area Man Has Naked-Lady Fetish"

theonion.com/content/node/28874

Sometimes what a culture covers up eroticizes the boundaries of what remains exposed. For example, a woman's ankle was considered erotic in late-Victorian England; in many European countries, women are free to be topless, while in the United States, this is both a taboo and illegal in most states.

In this regard, there can be said to be a degree of fetishistic arousal in the average person who responds to particular bodily features as sign of attractiveness. However, fetishistic arousal is generally considered to be a problem only when it interferes with normal sexual or social functioning. Sometimes the term "fetishism" is used only for those cases where non-fetishist sexual arousal is impossible

When I was growing up the things I became attracted to on girls were the things that that were different then the boys I hung out had. Lets see, they had soft pale skin, growing breasts and longer hair then the boys did. Boys had crew cuts, flat tops. even "Beatle" cuts are not really long compared to girls. So for me to have a sexual attraction to girls, they had better not have characteristics of the guys I hung out with. No big muscles, no square jaws, no wide shoulders, no sacks hanging between their legs. Girls don't have to have hair to their ass to be attractive, but it sure makes them much more non-boy like than the Billie Jean King dyke cut popular at the time.

Now being turned on just because a girl is getting a haircut is beyond the differences in men and women's characteristics and more in the realm of spanking, domination and humiliation. Taking something away from a girl that is considered universally feminine.

This is just my humble opinion.