Fluffy desire goes behind the need to own/possess/submit (as in "no-nonsense sex") and also beyond the need to become_one with the object of desire (as in "romantic" love).
As Deleuze put it, desire is never desire for an object, it is always desire for an "assemblage" which includes more than one and which cannot exclude us. (Even if you want an umbrella, you can never have it in the sense of total appropriation, you rather desire a certain "assemblage" which includes the umbrella and yourself.)
The problem is then that desire is generaly conceptualised as lack. This actually leads to an interestingly negative conceptualisation of the desiring (and thus lacking/incomplete) one as a poor, needy being (Arendt). Since one is lacking, s/he is striving for something s/he doesn't already have and therefore the key of his/her completeness is in someone else's hands. Pathetic (Ursula).
I think we know better than that. As mentioned above, the desiring one is the one who wants to create a situation in which s/he necessarily plays a role. Desire is therefore always a promise of an open-ended utopia which involves more than us alone and as such an always ethically coded relation. But don't get me wrong, I think that the moral responsability here is the one to ourselves more than anyone else. I am calling for more care/respect for who we already are. Others are crucial and constitutive allright, but what we desire is always a scene of encounter in which we both become someone else and instigate the other's becoming.
In that sense, sustainably fluffy subject are not asking "Who/what do I want?", but "What do I hope will happen?".
