Talk:Foot fetishism/Archive 1

Reasons for foot fetishism

i wonder what makes some people attracted to feet anyway? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darthvader88 (talk • contribs) .

Same thing that makes people attracted to anything else -- behavioural imprinting or genes.

I think this could be true at a Foot fetish forum I go to Some of the members Say their Children Are Attracted to feet -Joe —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.254.192.81 (talk • contribs) .

I'd wager it's a mix of both, despite the anti-determinist crowd constantly trying to tear apart any indication of relations between genes and behaviour, but that's just my personal POV opinion. --Ashmodai 13:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe because such a claim completely ignores all the evidence of developmental biology. Just a guess. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.208.181 (talk • contribs) .

Uhm, developmental biology never prove that the nature vs nurture debate is wrong and EVERYTHING is caused by nurture alone. Quite the opposite. I didn't say nurture has no influence at all, I just said that nature (i.e. genes) might provide a certain predisposition that favours the development of foot fetishism. At least it seems to make more sense than the extremist stances that everything is a matter of nature OR nurture alone. -- Ashmodai 04:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What developmental biology shows is that the whole nature/nurture distinction is problematic. The effects that genes have depends on the context they are in. Same goes for behavioural imprinting, or any other developmental factor. They can't be isolated in that way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.208.181 (talk • contribs) .

(from elean scaachi) I think it's an intersting debate. Nature/nurture can't be seperated, as the last poster said. They are interdependent - environment selects genes, and the phenotype interacts with the environment. A clear distinction is a fallacy. Imprinting might well be the reason why some people have this fetish, but: all infants crawl around on the floor (see the wiki article on foot fetish) and so have the oppurtunity to get that imprinting: but only a minority seem to acquire a foot fetish. So imprinting and genes alone don't really add up? I think our debate is probably missing some other element. If anyone has any ideas as to what that element might be I would like to hear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eleanscaachi (talk • contribs) .

The only thing i believe can be fixed in this defenition is that the whole thing seems to revolve around a males fetish towards female feet, and it goes on to explain that the only reason 'males' like feet is because it represents the curves of a females buttocks and all that.. I'm a gay male, and i adore male feet, and i think that for one, instead of ".. a female foot" it should say "... the human foot..." or something like that. And that i totally agree! theres a huge chance that alot of males may like feet because of how the curves may represent the body of a woman, but its not the only reasons they like feet. I also know a few females who like feet, and a few combinations of foot fetishists, so it should be more widely explored. .. on a side note, i hope that i'm contributing to the discussion page correctly. Wikipedia is DEFENITELY not new-user friendly ;p

I think it's just a simple matter of bare skin taboo. Some people were raised in households that usually wore slippers or socks, bare feet tend to become associated with emerging from the bath/shower, going swimming, other situations.. Often a pair of bare feet and legs can be used in an establishing shot in a movie to imply nudity.

That and the general taboo against feet which reverses itself when aspects thereof (smell, misshapenness) are removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.73.234.111 (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)...i love female feet because i love to be humailated.. ONLY by females , and since feet is the lowest part in the human body i love to get humailted by it ..that's my opinion

Fetishism (Contradiction?)

I'm beginning to wonder what qualifies a fetish as fetish. The article blurs the subject a bit by saying:

On the other hand, enjoying the look of pretty feet and good pedicure as well as caressing the partner's feet is normal human behavior, as long as the interest in his/her whole personality persists.

That last part makes it sounds as if a foot fetishism would only exist in a person who isn't interested in the partner's whole personality. So having an extraordinary interest in a body part isn't a fetish as long as it doesn't hamper one's ability to have a normal (sexual) relationship? Pray tell, what is it THEN if it doesn't qualify as a fetish? That part contradicts the definition of foot fetishism given in the article IMO. --Ashmodai 12:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where is this "contradiction"? Nothing you say indicates one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.208.181 (talk • contribs) .

The very definition of a fetish is that it's a peculiar interest in an inanimate object, concept/situation or bodypart — if the sentence would be about aesthetics rather than "pleasing", it might work: you can think that something is "aesthetic" (="looks good") without actually being turned on by it — most straight men can agree that one man or another "looks good" without being sexually aroused by the looks at all, just like you can enjoy the looks of a romantic landscape without getting a hard-on.

However, as-is, the sentence basically boils down to "You can be aroused by feet without having a foot fetish", which contradicts the definition of "foot fetish" as "being aroused by feet", non? -- Ashmodai 21:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I still see no contradiction. As you say, a fetish is an interest in an inanimate object. If one focuses on feet themselves, and pays no mind to the rest of the person, they have a foot fetish because they objectify the feet. If someone enjoys the feet of the person they are with, and treat their partner as a whole person, then they don't have a fetish because they're not treating feet as an inanimate object, but as part of an animate whole (ie, a person). Such a person is called a foot partialist (they're partial to feet). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.208.181 (talk • contribs) .

I'm a straight male who has a fetish with other male (socked feet) and I can explain the whole reasoning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.161.155.253 (talk • contribs) .

A new claim

Here's a claim I removed because it might be original research. ". Another imprinting-based theory revolves around the association of the feet with a person the person was sexually attracted to in the early stages of his adolesence, or of the association of the same with other aspects of that particular attraction."

If this statement can be backed by a reliable source, then it can be reinstated in the article. Lotusduck 20:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a rather stupid claim. If you've got the hots for a person and their feet, and consecutively develop a foot fetish, the attraction to that person's feet is more of an indicator than a cause.

Since the whole nature vs. nurture debate is unresolved anyway, I don't think a rather specific speculation should appear as a fact unless there's a strong backing. The Freudian "I gots the hots for my mommy's feet" imprinting theory grosses me out, too, but I think that one at least has Freud and his followers as a backing. -- Ashmodai 21:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I hear that. Heck, according to policy pretty much nothing should appear without backing, so that people can fact check, especailly without being experts. Lotusduck 02:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Article has degraded

First time I'm actually participating in a Wiki (though I've been reading for a while now)...

The exponential amount of edits in the past couple of months have been to the detriment of the article IMO. Much of the more recent content is purely pornographic conjecture. Do we really need to know the multiple ways to give a footjob? Exactly how common and accepted are some of these terms and acronyms within the foot fetish community? Is it really necessary to individually list every single element of foot fetishism that a fetishist may be aroused by? Not to mention the sentence structure and grammar also need more than a little improvement:

"Some like to see mature feet, others like younger feet, some like fatter feet, and some like skinnier feet with visual tendons. Some people like huge female feet like the feet seen on tall women or athletes, such as women basketball players (US size 10 - size 15). Some enjoy little petite feet too."

This isn't suitable for a Wiki. Previous versions of the article were far more objective and technical in their analysis of a foot fetish. Can we all agree that this article needs a cleanup? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Akspray (talk • contribs) .

Additional Comment

1. Response to "Article has degraded". Foot fetishism is a topic of a sexual nature, so any comments on how the article has "degraded" by being "excessively" sexual are out of place. Besides, what is so degrading about that? Why be purist, when listing different ways of how a foot fetish can be expressed are directly beneficial to the article by supplying information? No, we cannot all agree that the article needs a clean up in the way that is implied. If anything, article needs to be more specific. Although, on the other hand, some parts of the article are a little ambiguous (as per other posts)

2. Comment on the article text: "Still another theory is that a person who adores feet is submissive. However, this would be a small percentage, as most foot fetishists are male, and are therefore sexually dominant by nature."

Really, are "therefore sexually dominant by nature?". Then how do you explain the staggering amount of submissive males and a HUGE market for female dominants? Someone needs to check their sources before posting this! That needs to be changed; I can provide supporting evidence that the percentage of submissive males is quite large.

3. The picture is while of feet, is not exactly representative of "foot fetish", unlike the picture on the boot fetish topic. A new picture may be in order. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martyn427 (talk • contribs) .

I've removed the picture because it is not related enough. It's a family friendly exception to the usual problem with sex related article's illustrations, but I think wikipedia has better pictures than that to illustrate this article. -- Ashmodai 04:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Additional Comment

I couldn't agree more - this article is an embarassment to Wikipedia. It sounds like it was written by a kid for their MySpace page.

"...Do we really need to know the multiple ways to give a footjob?..." Agreed. This is as superfluous as it is silly.

I remember reading this article Before there was talk of footjobs but it was done in a tasteful way, something like some guys like having sex with feet most partners allow this. Was that removed Becuase I read it again and couldn't find any reference to footjobs. If It was Removed it should be added agian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.254.192.81 (talk • contribs) .

And to assert that males are naturally dominant sexually is an affront. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.29.135.69 (talk • contribs) .

It does not state males are naturally dominant, if I read it correctly. It states foot fetishism is male dominant, i.e. more prevalent with males. It also cites a source. -- Ashmodai 04:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It is evident that the term was totally incorrect. When mentioning "male dominant" the reader is led to think of "male domination", and it is exactly the opposite. Foot fetishism is the most popular fetish among males, but specially when combined with female domination, just check the amount of webpages dedicated to the subject, and the fact that every femdom page in the net has a large section of foot fetish attached. -- sorompio

Clear sources

About this bit:

"One explanation, advanced by neurologist Prof. Daniel Griffiths, highlights the fact that the feet and the genitals occupy adjacent areas of the sensory cortex, possibly entailing some neural crosstalk between the two".

It would be of the most important interest to make clear who this Prof. Daniel Griffiths is and where is this quotation taken from. The only professor Griffiths I could find over the net is not a neurologist but a recently passed away biologist in the Department of Biological Sciences of the University of Illinois. An unpublished dissertation of this guy is quoted in some webpages but I couldn't find any reference either to foot fetish or neurology.

Thanks.

User: --sorompio 13:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)sorompio —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sorompio (talk • contribs) .

Leonardo DaVinci

Leonardo DaVinci had a foot fetish, maybe this should be looked into more. In his search of beauty he had several drawings of the female foot. I think some people are trying to keep this underwraps though; no one else has commented on it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uuoeden (talk • contribs) .

Addition to Sexuality WikiProject?

It would seem that a larger 'sex-oriented' wiki community that is less biased towards the specific article might be a good idea. The Wikipedia:WikiProject_ sexSexology_and_sexuality seems to be working on such issues as image appropriateness guidelines (Reference: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines). Wold it be worth aligning this page under that project? Lordandrei (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Added to Sexuality and Psychology Wiki Projects Lordandrei (talk) 04:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 22 broken.

Footnote link 22 appears to be broken. 66.191.19.68 (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Treatment section?

It appears that the majority of the text regarding treatment is covered in Sexual fetish. Any thoughts on shortening the section and linking to the aforementioned page/section? Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: User:Rsl12 has deleted the entire section. While I agree there is no need to repeat, verbatim, the fetish treatment section, I think a short sentence with an internal link to aforementioned article. Thoughts about that before it is added? Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 13:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Example Cases - Unsupported youtube statement and misleading youtube link

Where it says "Video databases such as "Youtube" receive many thousands of queries a day involving the term "foot fetish".13" The 13 leads to some footfetish video on youtube and isn't a source at all to support this claim. I ask that someone find a source to back up this misleading statement or remove this line and the unrelated video link regardless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.124.72 (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the youtube link and inserted a citation needed if I was on the wrong feel free to revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.124.72 (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If the statistic can be backed up with reliable source, it mightbe noteworthy. Otherwise it should go. Thanks for removing the unnecessary link. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 04:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles like this are what makes WikiPedia excellent

It gives you the straight dope on obscure things you never even thought about. Things you could never find in other general 'look-up' works. The only bad thing I can think of is that we need a little more details and illustrations I think. Great work! T.R. 87.59.78.140 (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC) a footjob is soo sexy i love em —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.251.194 (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Foot Fetish photographs

Would it be appropriate to post modern-day digital photographs of persons engaging in foot worship? Of course, there is no pornography in such photographs, except photos of bare feet and the photos of a person's face kissing a person's feet and/or sucking a person's toes. Would it be appropriate to post such photos in here?
I should also add that the photos are of men worshiping other men's feet. I don't know how much more inappropriate (or appropriate) that would be?
Native94080 (talk) 08:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

At least one modern photo of a man engaging in such activity with a woman would seem apropos. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 18:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have any photos of a straight couple engaging in foot fetish....LOL
Native94080 (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops, should have read your message a little closer. I am not opposed to adding photos in general. We'd want something that is fairly representative of the fetish. What would capture the essence of said probably should be discussed.

Also, there were photos before. One was removed due to being deemed to pornographic, the rest (IIRC) due to copyright violations.

Finally, considering how long the article is, we shouldn't add too many pictures. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Useful websites

http://www.feet.tv/ -- A gay foot fetish social networking website. Pchk (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
http://www.footpartysf.com/ -- I'm posting the San Francisco foot party website for those persons that would (perhaps) like to anonymously interview the persons who attend this party.
Native94080 (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Madonna

Madonna is seen sucking on a woman's toe in her Sex book as well as on the back cover of her Erotica album. Add her to the list? Israell (talk) 07:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems likely, but it would be nice to have a source in print. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• I remember reading long ago that Madonna added the toe sucking to her Sex Book for a bit of shock value but about that time photos of Fergie (the Duchess of York, not the singer) having her toes sucked by her lover surfaced and overshadowed Madonna's statement that clean feet could be erotic-- most any sex manual will say feet can be erotic so that doesn't really mean she is into feet... Lisa mynx (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

She certainly has a foot fetish, True Blue has a dedication to someone sayng, 'I kiss your stinky feet', she certainly enjoys dom/sub, therefore foot fetish comes into that, other examples but they don't come to mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.86.137 (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

About the Fascination:

First, in Arabic, Hindu, Asian and African cultures, the act of entering a place of worship, without shoes, is to show subservience, and a hint of sexual submission to god. Showing your feet to god, allows him to see your body, in a naked, yielding way. In poor cultures, around the world, all poor people have for entertainment, is sex, so going barefoot is the way they all travel.

In every culture, though, a beautiful, barefoot girl, or woman, even by other females, is considered attractive. Feet remind people of sex. In America, going barefoot is primarily done by females.

It is a rite of passage of young girls in America to get tough, calloused feet, in order to “become a woman.” It is a trait that separates the female from the male of the species. It is a way that a woman can show-off her ‘female power’ over society, its laws, and its taboos.

Males might notice aggression from other males when they go barefoot, because it could be considered cross-dressing, or feminine, simply because it’s done so often, by so many females. When a male goes barefoot, it is because he has felt a woman’s feet, and decided he wants to know ‘ why’ women go barefoot, and why women go through so much pain, to what end, and what that pain, or callouses accomplish. Fearing embarrassment, laughter and ridicule from females, when a male in America goes barefoot, it is usually in the dead of night, so no one can see him, because a barefoot man is an eyesore, with big, hulking toes, not like the dainty, painted-toe-nailed, small feet of a female.

A man can be embarrassed to be seen as having a foot fetish. Unlike the female, who takes pride in showing off her foot fetish, every day, even in flip flops, showing her bare feet to the world. Since the advent of paved roads, in the 1960's and 70's, women and girls have sought tough, calloused feet, to shock and amaze other girls, and boys who might feel the bottoms of their feet.

Girls are known to have ‘barefoot contests’ between each other, in Spring and Summer, growing up. Boys may play baseball, or swim in Summer, but girls go barefoot - all day, every day, just to get their feet tough. The pedicure industry, and assorted pedicure products offered in grocery markets, are testaments to this widespread female character trait - they don’t market these things to boys.

You can tell the sex drive of a woman who has tough, calloused feet. You can tell how promiscuous she is, if her feet have solid, like-steel skin on the bottoms of her feet - you know that she is going to want to share her foot secret with as many people as she can. When a man feels a woman’s feet for the first time, and finds the skin there to be way tougher than anything he could imagine, it turns the man on, whether he admits it right away or not.

Going barefoot teaches young girls to be promiscuous, how to lie, and how to keep a secret - tools that prove very handy, in the modern world of divorce court, and male/female relationships, in America. Females are enjoying and abusing power, like no other female in human history ever could before. Learning how to give pleasure to the opposite sex, by giving people skin to look at, and to give themselves, in a pornographic way, prepubescently entices girls to give up inhibitions, and to experience an affectionate reward, from most anyone they meet, in that, girls make friends easier, usually, when they are barefoot.

Young girls are encouraged by their parents, and society to go barefoot in public. Women are rewarded foot kissing, or other kinds of foot attention, in America, for having tough, calloused feet. They are in every commercial (notice next time, all the soles poses or sole shots), every TV show, and every movie.

Female feet are very much a part of American Culture, and a woman that shows her soles to people, can get an endorphin rush, and sexual stimulation from, ‘ what no one speaks about’, since most people don’t understand their own fascination with feet. A lot of women have told their mates not to kiss their breasts, anymore, but to kiss their feet instead, since their breasts mostly hurt, or have no feeling, and their feet register in the close proximity of the “pleasure zone” of the brain. Nerve endings from every part of the body are in the bottoms of the feet, and foot kissing, with conditioning, can bring great pleasure or orgasm.

Over time, and after repetition in sex, things associated with sex can bring climax, and a man can orgasm from kissing his woman’s feet, as well. Young girls, who are taught to go barefoot, as early as five, try to get their feet kissed by their sisters, brothers, or a boy they might play with. Nobody ever talks about feet, but everybody has a foot fetish.

Every American girl, who is attractive, or who knows she has attractive feet, has two hobbies: sex, and going barefoot, on a never-ending quest for tougher, more calloused feet. Although, most girls discover that, by age twelve, their pads on their feet and even their toes, are very hard, and, for the rest of their lives, that skin stays that way. They don’t even have to go barefoot anymore, to retain tough, calloused skin.

This is because females grow skin faster than males, due to the properties of estrogen. Look at a pregnant woman - her hair, skin and nails grow at an alarming rate. It is futile for a man to go barefoot - he would never be able to achieve, or maintain the tough, calloused skin, that a woman, during the same walking time, would achieve.

In this foot fetish culture, a man has to know, and be prepared, that when a woman takes off her flip flop, and shows the bottom of her foot to him, she is sexually interested in him. It’s just what most women do now, even though foot fetishism is different from person to person, and what one person likes to do, may be far different from what the next person likes to do; a woman's feet can define her. It can make or break a relationship, especially if it gets too weird, or is in bad taste.

Intelligent people tend to take it to a higher, more spiritual/sexual place, while not so intelligent people tend to leave it out, or do it wrong, or complain they don’t understand it. If the girl does not have tough, calloused feet - more than likely she doesn’t understand it, and will be relocated to the ‘foot-job culture’, where soft-soled women usually end up ‘pretending’ to understand what makes a man happy, and where men really don’t know how to feed their foot craving effectively. Foot kissing is the way a man thanks a woman for walking the streets barefoot, all her life - a way to say ‘thank you’ for the pain, pornography, and inhibition of going barefoot in public, and to these tough, calloused-footed girls, foot kissing is usually the most important part of a relationship.

Receiving oral pleasure from a girl, while looking at the bottoms of her feet, or while kissing her feet, is widely considered some of the best, most enjoyable sex a man and woman can have. There is something ancient and spiritual about it. Any sex can become foot fetish sex.

More and more, you cannot have, or start a relationship with a girl, without some kind of foot attention paid to the girl, and right up front. Very psychotic games can be played with feet, and no other body part. They can be a sign of affection, an insult, or mean nothing at all, and only the “barer” of those feet, would really know what they mean by them.

On a girl, they are like whiskers on a cat, and can be her most important asset.

````NoNameAvailable —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoNameAvailable (talk • contribs) 06:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an awful lot of crap! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.86.137 (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a not a soap box nor a blog. Surv1v4l1st <sup>(Talk|Contribs)</sup> 01:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

please remove the word Fake! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.76.164.142 (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Um... what? Almost none of this actually fits the mindset of American females or foot fetishists-- the author even seems to contradict himself in saying that every female wants tough, calloused feet yet the pedicure industry is striving-- it is striving to get rid of the callouses so how does one support the other in a positive manner? Lisa mynx (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Foot fetishism is NO disease!

What sick person wrote that article. It is structured and written, as if foot fetishism was some disease that had to be threated (even with medicaments). Seriously guys? WTF?

This article needs a major overhaul. By someone from the 21st century! — 88.77.137.180 (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If you think the article needs improvement, create an account and be bold. Have your reliable sources in order though as your edits may be challenged with our proper sources. Surv1v4l1st <sup>(Talk|Contribs)</sup> 19:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That part about religion and not having much sex is absolutely ridiculous and should be removed immediately! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.41.19 (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, foot fetishism is not a disease, it actually is insulting to think so. Most young British gay men have a foot fetish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.86.137 (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

STIs and foot fetish + this article needs major rehauling and improvement

The study seems to me to fail to create a link. The two things seem to be disconnected and fully casual. And they would not work in other countries. For example, foot fetish is mainistream (trainer fetish as well) and very, very, very common amongst young gay men. It has been so for about 10 years.

Foot fetish is due to biological and psychological reasons. Biologically, feet are very sensitive, as they are the termination of the nervous system (hence reflexology), therefore, naturally erogenous. They also are really packed with ferormones, leven more than armpits, and more than genitalia, therefore, they arouse people. When you say feet are not a sexual organ, what you mean is reproductive, therefore you need to change that, sex is not just reproduction, or is there a mouth fetish, as people kiss and snog, breasts are not reproductive, therefore they are no more sexual than feet according to your own reasoning. Psychologically, they are linked with growing up and the whole sub-dom culture. When people grow up, as most like having their feet pampered, touched, licked etc for the very reasons above, they will find a young friend to play with them, who will develop a foot fetish (there are many other reasons, but this seems to be a very common pattern). It is clear that the one who has his/her feet licked etc takes on a dominant position, the other a submissive, so most foot festishists fall into the dom-sub scene. Pleas do something about this article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.86.137 (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

China

I believe that in China, even today, naked feet (of both sexes) are considered as improper and erotic as e.g. naked breasts. Does this belong here? Any sources?--Noe (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say this has relevance; perhaps under a section entitled taboos or something similar. As for citations... I suppose Chinese law is a start. Investigating it first would be best. 03:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordandrei (talk • contribs)

I think that both of you referring to foot binding. Perhaps this artcle benefit from a small mention and a "see also" section.--Kevin586 (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me that foot binding is unto itself a different subject as opposed to the legislation against bared feet due to potential eroticism which (given citations) would be appropriate here. Lordandrei (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not know if such legislation exists (it may well do), but I think it's rather obvious that the taboo is related to the former praxis of foot binding. I am far from expert on any of this, and I have no references; I just thought I'd call attention to this matter, and I hope someone who knows and who can find the sources will write a paragraph on it.--Noe (talk) 08:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I've actually been there and people wear sandals as many do in warm climates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.91.180 (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC) No, but it is rude to show the soles of one's feet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.86.137 (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What Are The Causes Foot Fetishism?

This is an excellent topic that I wish there was far more material available on. I have been looking. (Note: I also moved this up a topic level) Lordandrei (talk) 07:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This #Causation## bit only mentions one person's view so where are the possible alternatives. I thought Freud and others connected it to infancy when the mother / nurse 's feet are obvious whereas the parts further up like hips and breasts would be out of range.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Check my post above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.86.137 (talk) 02:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Causation "theory"

"Neurologist Vilayanur S. Ramachandran proposed that foot fetishism is caused by the feet and the genitals occupying adjacent areas of the somatosensory cortex, possibly entailing some neural crosstalk between the two."

This sentence reads as if it informed about an actually considered scientific theory or even just a proposal that was made in good earnest. Ramachandran's proposal, however, was clearly meant tongue-in-cheek -- this has been something of a joke, and nothing else! Otherwise it wouldn't hold much water anyhow, because the region of the brain in question is only processing the sensory input (that amounts to the feelings one has) of (obviously) one's own feet. Yet the majority of foot fetishists isn't particularly attracted to their own feet, but to those of others. One should clarify on the nature of that (non)proposal. Zero Thrust (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless supported by the academic community at large, this has to be rejected here. Even if vaguely humorous, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. Propositions are commonplace in science, but proof is somewhat scarcer. As it stands, it should go, with extreme prejudice, and it has. Rodhullandemu 02:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Rod, the Ramachandran proposition doesn't seem like fringe or humorous at all. And I disagree that propositions, based in evidence, have no place in wikipedia. Consider the yawning article--while no-one knows for sure why we yawn, there have been a number of theories proposed.--RSLxii 16:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone else with the same theory: http://enagoski.wordpress.com/2010/04/02/pedal-pushing/ --Rsl12 (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I looked up Ramachandran--nothing about it seems tongue in cheek. http://books.google.com/books?id=Qw7qj5nXSPUC&lpg=PA184&ots=N8TphTrbQ-&dq=ramachandran%20genitals%20feet%20fetish&pg=PA182#v=onepage&q=ramachandran&f=false --Rsl12 (talk) 09:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Unless there is scientific proof, a causation theory would have no more proof than one dealing with Autism. Gurgle528 (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Famous people

Right, the poor average guy with this fetish will feel better if they know that even famous people have it! Kerliboxxy (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you've made your own point here, unless your point was to highlight the opposite. If notable people are listed here and show no shame in a particular preference or orientation, isn't that better for them? Or perhaps I've missed the point of your post, if there was one. Rodhullandemu 00:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It should be checked over more carefully. I couldn't see anything in the provided citation for James Joyce having a foot fetish that said he did. Rather, the piece was about fetishism in general. The sourced portion in THAT article about Joyce himself, instead of one of his characters, was about his wife giving him a hand job. Nothing about the man himself having a foot fetish (something I can't recall reading about him, and I've read extensive biographies. He had many fetishes, so it's certainly possible, but it needs a better reference for this article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.222.217 (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Time to protect?

I am wondering if it is time to protect either the article or, more precisely, the 'Famous foot fetishists' section. We are getting an inordinate amount of vandalism and joke edits in the latter section. Some of the vandalism begins to get into WP:BLP issues. Thoughts? Surv1v4l1st <sup>(Talk|Contribs)</sup> 20:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yea, some guy deleted most of the Famous Foot Fetishists section, including many people who are well known to have a foot fetish, such as Ricky Martin and Brittney Spears. Somebody please add them all back, I don't really know how to use Wiki much, this is my first time posting anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.215.36 (talk) 05:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ted Bundy

I'm removing Ted Bundy from the list of foot fetishists. I read the source material and I don't think it is conclusive that he had a foot fetish at all. While he mentions an obsession with socks (among other types of clothes), his use of the word fetish seemed clearly figurative, referred to socks in particular and not feet, and it seems more like he has some kind of hoarding/stealing issue than anything else. I did not see any mention of erotic stimulation of any sort in this section of the book. I feel that not only is it inaccurate to include his name, but it almost seems calculated to make foot fetishists look bad by including a serial killer at the very top of the list. 209.134.115.5 (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Deleted celebrties sec

I deleted the celebrity section of this article. I feel that it's none of our business, I hav it and no one in the world knows about it, becuase I'd be embaressed to talk about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by The hacking master (talk • contribs) 05:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work that way. You must gain consensus before removing properly sourced sections, you don't get to just have your way without or before any discussion.— Dædαlus <sup>Contribs</sup> 06:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I don't believe there should be considered consensus here. A couple of editors are taking a POV with a bias that even well-sourced inclusions on this list are inappropriate. They have no reasonable basis for this except their "feeling" (note above wording "I feel") that this common sexual interest is embarrassing. I advocate the required criteria for the list should be only notability and reliable source. Please see my discussion lower in this section. Ryvr (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted a load of living people from the list where the sources are not 100% reliable. We have to stick to BLP rules on pages like this, just as much as on the celebs main page. There's a big difference between a jokey article somewhere using the term "foot fetish" and an encyclopedia saying a person is a "notable foot fetishist". If this list continues to attract potentially libelous material, it may be best to delete it completely. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I need to add that I've done this exercise before and the same sort of dubious material has come back. In one case I think the same hostile interview by an ex-girlfriend from a celebrity gossip site was used as a source. Editors are just looking at the number next to the name and saying "OK that's got a reference", but it's not OK. If more material of a similar nature gets added I'm going to delete all the living people and change the list to a "deceased" one. BLP rules are very strict and demand bold and immediate editing to remove contentious material about living people. I googled one celebrity's name and "foot fetish" and it took me straight to this page (and nowhere else)!!!!! This is not an issue for consensus among this page's editors: this material has to go and stay gone. --Simon Speed (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, one week later an unsourced claim about a living celeb was added, probably in good faith. The existence of this list is an open invitation to put up some potentially libelous material. I strongly feel this needs to become an "of the past" list. If there are no objections in the next few days I may just change the title and delete the remaining living people. --Simon Speed (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I've moved all the celebrity discussion to the end. This seemed to make most sense as it needed to be together but is in 3 sections. --Simon Speed (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the remaining living people from the list on the main page (even though they were well sourced) and changed the title to "from the past". This seems to be the only way to stop the list collecting unsourced and poorly sourced claims about living people. These are often being added in good faith by editors who read internet gossip and humor: the fact that a celebrity does not respond to such stuff is not the same as a confirmation of it. If people disagree with what I've done could they discuss it here please? --Simon Speed (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I wasn't initially particularly happy about it, but I see your point and don't really care. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any alternative suggestions? --Simon Speed (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, just stop with all the changes. If there is no reliable source that points to someone likely having a foot fetish, then delete them, but there is no reason to move the list around or change the name of the list. Other than the people added without a reliable source, there was nothing wrong with the list the way it has been for a while. F Scott Fitzgerald does have a foot fetish too, so I don't know why he was deleted. Also I'm pretty sure Ricky Martin has one too, and he was deleted...I'm looking for a source now. Billy, 1:20 AM, 2 October 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.215.36 (talk) 05:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no particular problem with claims about long dead people like F Scott Fitzgerald though I'm not much impressed with the source given. The thing about living people is that unprovable and (even mildly) embarrassing claims about them are LIBELOUS. Even when the victim is a good sport and doesn't want to kick up a fuss we need to keep this an encyclopedia. Please read what I've written above and read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons carefully. --Simon Speed (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've put the "from the past" back into the title of this section and removed the living people who have been added. The previous arguments still stand. In fact, all that has happened is that the title has been changed and living people have been added with no discussion. One of the 2 living people was included with no source provided, the second was referenced from a lighthearted article (what do jokey gossipy articles actually mean?) from a reasonable source, but neither of these people's biographical articles mention this sexual preference. --Simon Speed (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

While of course all info in Wikipedia must have reliable sources, Simon Speed's (and others') insistence that this be limited to dead people is offensive. For something to be libelous, it must be malicious, false, and defamatory. Simon Speed's approach here seems to assume a bias of stigma against a very normal sexual interest. I think that inclusion in this list should require the criteria only of notability and reliable source. That would certainly be more reasonable with an eye toward NPOV, rather than a value assumption that a sexual attraction to feet is embarrassing. Claims of potential libel are ridiculous on two counts. (1) If there is reliable source, there is no libel because it is not false or malicious. (2) You are making a value judgment that reporting someone's (perhaps proud) sexual interest in feet is defamatory, which is an inexcusable departure from NPOV.

I hope that some people who agree with me will chime in here, and people opposed to any inclusion of well-sourced living people should at least need an argument that holds more water than supposed potential libel based on that editor's prejudice. Would libel be a concern also for reporting living openly gay people in a homosexuality article? I don't think so. So why here? Ryvr (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, anything controversial about a living person must be referenced from a reliable source. That is Wikipedia policy, not my personal prejudice, if you don't like it please argue for its amendment. I understand my removal of all living persons was extreme. Unfortunately it was also necessary. The same unreferenced and badly referenced claims kept being replaced in the list. If you check out the main Wikipedia articles on these people, not one refers to foot fetishism (a rather telling fact in itself). Libel laws in some countries do not require proof of malice (one reason why BLP is so strong) and foot fetishism may be seen in different ways in different contexts: I do remember that one of the references provided was to claims made by a dumped ex girlfriend quoted on a gossip site (funny how the mainstream media didn't repeat them!!!!). --Simon Speed (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Footjob Redirect.

A search on footjob redirects to this article, but there is no mention of the practice. However the article about non-penetrative sex does contain a short description. Thought I'd point it out. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears to have been changed. Thanks. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

... does not mention the sexual action with feet at all.... --Timish ¤ Gül Bahçesi 22:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. The non-penetrative sex has an internal link back to this article and, as you mentioned, there is not a description of the practice(s). 66.191.19.68 (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

By the same token, "Foot worship" redirects here, but there is no reference to the act. Surv1v4l1st <sup>(Talk|Contribs)</sup> 20:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC) I undid the redirect from foot worship in the light of this discussion. MammonI.Dumah (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

But wouldn't anal be a more popular fetish.

It's quite common but it's not exactly "common intercourse", it's not supposed to 'go there'. Though we think it's obvious. And it's so obvious that I guess it doesn't even cross the mind it might be a fetish. --46.176.125.87 (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Two things:

1) You are assuming that anal sex qualifies as a fetish.

2) The statement in the article says, "It is the most common form of sexual fetishism for otherwise non-sexual objects or body parts." Anal sex is not an "object or body part". - SummerPhD (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Alleged Celebrities with Foot Fetishes

The following entries lack any supporting references. It seems that due to the nature of inferring non-published sexuality, it is best to keep 'theoretical fetishists' off the main article page. Follow all the standard wikipedia practices for acceptable citations. Once a celebrity has a verifiable citation then they can be moved (with citation) to the main article page.

With luck this should reduce the vandalism on the main article page.

• Charles Pierre Baudelaire
• Casanova
• Keith Caputo
• Jamie Daniels
• Damon Dash
• Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
• Thomas Hardy
• Terrence Howard
• Marilyn Manson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantrumbladum (talk • contribs) 08:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• George du Maurier

• Howard Stern
• Joss Whedon
• Glenn Quagmire

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.92.58 (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• If anyone could help fix the link on the article page so it's a wiki link not a hard link that'd be appreciated Lordandrei (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Found the correct wiki markup for this Lordandrei (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
• I suppose disagreements over citation acceptability can be carried on here. Lordandrei (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Adding Jamie Daniels from unregistered user add to main page. Person is a legitimate Professional Fetishist but begs the question of Notability. 174.145.33.234 (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Forgot to login.. this was me Lordandrei (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

- I suggest adding Richard Simmons under the list. On this video from CNN posted in YouTube [[1]] it is clear that he has a foot fetish. --69.158.126.101 (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

- I suggest adding New York Jets Head Coach Rex Ryan (http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2010/12/21/2010-12-21_jets_coach_rex_ryans_wife_michelle_bears_uncanny_resemblence_to_woman_in_footfet.html) (http://deadspin.com/5715741/this-may-or-may-not-be-rex-ryans-wife-making-foot+fetish-videos?skyline=true&s=i) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aplicoz (talk • contribs) 17:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

-I have an issue with the citations under the "famous foot fetishists" section. Several of them are questionable. For example, the Marilyn Manson one cites an article that assumes he has a foot fetish because he kissed Jenna Jameson's feet during sex. Kissing feet during sex doesn't necessarily mean he has a foot fetish. Britney Spears and Dita Von Tease are cited as having said they enjoy being on the receiving end of foot worship, but I think it's at least debatable as to whether or not that classifies them as having a foot fetish themselves. F. Scott Fitzgerald's citation is the worst offender. The citation links to a comedy blog that claims his foot fetish is widely known. First of all, the author cites no evidence. Second of all, since when is a comedy blog post by a semi-anonymous person with no credentials that we know of even a remotely acceptable citation? I don't think I'm nitpicking when I say it's inexcusable to use that as a source. 70.92.176.226 (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony Cruz and Mario Lopez are also known to have foot fetishs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.154.185 (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Adding Britney Spears from main page. There seems to be disagreement on whether she qualifies. Lordandrei (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Just cleaning the formatting. Lordandrei (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    • As you noticed, I removed the Britney entry. 1) The cited reference is not a reliable source. 2) The definition of foot fetishism in this article is "a pronounced sexual interest in feet", which we have no supporting evidence for in the cited reference for Britney. Valrith (talk) 05:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• Removing Quentin Tarantino from the main page is slightly questionable, isn't it? I mean, it's a public secret he is into feet.

[2] [3] [4] I won't add him back to the main page based on this convincing but circumstantial evidence, before it's been discussed, but is it really necessary for someone to go on public record SAYING he has a foot fetish for it to make the list here? (Crimboween (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC))

• • Never mind, I saw he was up on the main page already. I've removed him from the list above. (Crimboween (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

The Quentin Tarantino reference seems pretty bogus to me: a Hollywood Investigator blog piece which says that there was a discussion in Village Voice (no link or specific citation), which was quoted in Everything Tarantino, but the link is to the main page of that web site, and I could not find anything about feet when I searched the site. If we cannot come up with a more solid reference, we should take Tarantino back out of our article, IMO. Peter Chastain (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Even if we can't find a specific instance of Tarantino saying he likes feet, it doesn't lessen the fact that he does. He makes a point of showing how much he loves feet in pretty much all his films, focusing the camera on them for an uncomfortable amount of time (even to me and I have a foot fetish). He even talked about how lucky he was to get to suck Salma Hayek's toes in the commentary for From Dusk Till Dawn. And I have found pictures of him sucking some Japanese girl's toes. Let's not nitpick... Lisa mynx (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Glenn Quagmire??? I will take someone's word for it that the episode in question features foot fetishism (if you follow references far enough, you eventually find it in someone else's wiki). The real question is whether we want to add a section for fictional foot fetishists. Quagmire does not belong in the same list with real ones. Peter Chastain (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Quagmire definitely has a foot fetish as shown in several episodes of Family Guy but there needs to be a separate list if we are going to include fictional characters... Lisa mynx (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Rosie Perez stated in the commentary for Pineapple Express that she likes feet... Lisa mynx (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Rosie Perez admited having a foot fetish
• Director/producer C.B. DeMille was known to have a foot fetish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.126.64.254 (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Rex Ryan the coach of the New York Jets has been in the news about having a foot fetish. He's not denying it, but he is saying it's a personal matter, which is probably the right way to go about it. He probably could be added to the list on the front page.
  • We would need a reliable source for this. When it comes to personal matters, we should stay on the side of caution, per WP:BLP. So far, all the sources I've seen are nothing more than innuendo and fall far short of the required standard for inclusion. Rodhullandemu 18:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Eugene Onegin is a fictional character, not a real person. Perhaps Pushkin, his creator, was? And what about Dostoyevsky? One of the characters in The Brothers Karamazov talks about the beauty of one specific woman's feet. Does that make him, (the character) a fetishist, much less the author who created him? I love beautiful eyes, beautiful lips, beautiful hair--does that make me an eye fetishist, a lip fetishist, or a hair fetishist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.6.202.113 (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems someone really wanted to include several people. The source for Onegin, for instance, has two problems: (1) It is essentially a gossip piece and is clearly not a reliable source (many of the claims it makes are weak) and (2) It doesn't say anything about Onegin or Pushkin. I'm yanking all of the entries citing this source. I'll review the list as well. To those looking to beef up the list: Yes, you may find comfort in finding examples of your fetish throughout history to offset the general disdain of your inclination. That said, this is Wikipedia. We have rules. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

References

File:Lickinsocks.jpg

This photo shows someone in the background who appears underage. It's not at all clear that it is a sexual image at all, but it shouldn't be illustrating a sexuality page. I've nominated it for deletion on the Commons and am removing it from here. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Accuracy

It says "It [foot fetish] is the most common form of sexual preference for otherwise non-sexual objects or body parts." Wouldn't the most common fetish of a non-sexual body part be mammophilia? Parthian Scribe 00:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If reliable source can be located, it would be an important correction. Do you have any info in that regard? I also wonder how much the given culture would influence the statistics. Surv1v4l1st <sup>(Talk|Contribs)</sup> 20:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

While not having a source to cite, I would assume foot fetishism beat mammophilia because it is not a gender/age specific fetish which would make it more accessible to a wider group. →Dark Cootie (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)