Talk:Foot fetishism/Archive 2

Request for improvement and proper illustration

I've flagged this article as in need of improvement in response to the comments above. I agree that the quality of this article has went downhill, but I'm too busy to sort it out myself. It has grown significantly, which is good, but it has become awfully incompatible with Wikipedia's quality standards, which is bad.

Also I'd like to ask someone to find a decent picture to illustrate the article, as has been suggested before. The "three right feet" photo is NOT a good illustration. If someone thinks differently, say it here before reverting my removal of that photo, please. -- Ashmodai 04:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The problem is to find a pic that accurately examples foot fetish and isn't (too) obscene. -- Jelly Soup 07:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

With no intention of turning this into a self-help group, I think it is very important to know why did this page's creator and contributors made it. In other words, what are their own relations with foot fetish. I have a foot fetish and I'm almost sure that many contributions are based on self-experience. This tendency could help either to improve or degrade the article, and I agree with Ashmodai when he says it IS important to mention every single way in which a fetishist could get turned on. Experience is at the very core of this topic. I guess Ashmodai is not a foot fetishist (My apologies if you find this comment rude or aggresive, but i do believe the quality, style, etc. of this article varies depending on the contributors' own experience):

i wonder what makes some people attracted to feet anyway?

As if he could hardly imagine the possibility.

That particular quote was actually not me, but an unsigned poster. The exact reason why I just took the liberty to sign all unsigned posts appropriately as per Template:Unsigned. Sorry for the misunderstanding. — Ashmodai ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

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

In my opinion the "nature vs. nurture" topic is a very important thing to discuss here and everywhere, but if we do not include concrete, raw examples of the fetish (and we don't need pornography for this) the article turns a product of an extremely impersonal discussion (which I believe is not particularly the spirit of Wiki-Stuff) AND inaccurate, for considering foot fetishism only as an object of study as if social researchers didn't study foot fetish as a practice or behaviour making use of statistical data of human origin. So, I think every single detail or quote about foot fetish experience are undoubtly VALID.

Agreed, all details are valid, but not all are notable. This is not alt.sex.fetish (or, rather, alt.sex.erotica). We don't need graphical descriptions of every imaginable sex act (if you want that, start a seperate article, e.g. foot fetishism techniques, or whatever would be an appropriate name -- although that'd find a better home at Wikibooks). We also do not need a detailed explanation of everything that may or may not be a turn-on or turn-off for someone who happens to identify him- or herself as a foot fetishist.

That's kinda like adding a column Things you can do with your hands in Hand. Interesting read maybe, but stupid. — Ashmodai ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think we need a better illustration? With regard to this, I'm sure the photos are utterly FOOT-FETISHIST-SELECTED, showing feet as objects we all should feel sexually attracted to by just looking at them. That's why the images are very inaccurate and don't represent the "Foot fetishism" article at all. My suggestion is to upload images showing softcore worship. Maybe, from some mainstream event or movie, to make clear this behaviour is very common nowadays. Uploading photos showing only feet is not a contribution here. Please post that on your own blog! Ill-starred 01:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, foot fetishism is a concept. It's always difficult to illustrate concepts. In this case a quick conclusion would be to show a related act, or the object of desire (well, A object, which may be of desire for SOME foot fetishists). Something stylised might be better than a softporn photo or vidcap.

The problem is just that people like posting things they like to look at. Just take the cat or kitten articles as an example. Absolutely adorable wuvly kittens, but not particularily useful from an objective, encyclopedic point of view.

I guess the best option is to wait for image proposals and accept or reject them through a democratic vote (users only, no sockpuppets) if they are safe enough to stay on Wikipedia that long. — Ashmodai ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

'Foot fetishism in popular culture' Not Useful

I propose deleting the 'foot fetishism in popular culture' section in its entirety, because 1. The prevalance of 'foot-related' scenarios in popular media is too common to list every single event, 2. Such a list provides no useful information regarding foot fetishism, 3. 'Fun Trivia' is not the point of Wikipedia, last time I checked. Moreover, this type of trivia is only 'fun' if you have a foot fetish yourself.--63.139.120.2 22:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, in reference to discussion topic number 10, I'd like to say that several wikipedia articles have little "Trivia" sections, but that's not my actual point.

I don't think that this section is entirely necessary, but can be useful to show that Foot Fetishism is becoming a more common and open topic of discussion in the world. I reccomend bringing back the section, and ONLY citing things that directly reference Foot Fetishism, such as Tyra Banks show on it, where she brought in Quentin Tarantino, and deleting things that only mention a time where a womans feet where simply shown. OneGiantLeap 04:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This site has been tagged recently as resembling a fan site. I think the charge is just. From the fancruft essay:

Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. While "fancruft" is often a succinct and frank description of such accumulations, it also implies that the content is unimportant and the contributor's judgement of notability is lacking.

Certainly this seems to hold true for the 'pop culture' section--only people with foot fetishes will be even mildly interested in the content provided in the 'pop culture' section.

OneGiantLeap counters that the pop culture reference list may serve the greater purpose of showing that foot fetishism is becoming a 'more open topic of discussion in the world.' Even if this is true, we can still argue for the section's deletion based on the Wikipedia guidelines for what constitutes notability:

Notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. Thus, the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether "the world" has judged a topic to be notable. This is unrelated to whether a Wikipedia editor personally finds the subject remarkable or worthy.

In my searching, I have not found a single instance of someone who has put into 'reliable published works' (or any work for that matter) a discussion of the acceptability of foot fetishism in mainstream culture, or even a compilation of 'pop culture references' of foot fetishism scenarios. Unless someone can find such a work, the topic is not notable by Wikipedia standards, and therefore should be deleted.--Rsl12 21:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Definition of 'Foot Fetish'

Foot fetishism or podophilia is a pronounced interest in human feet.

This one sentence seems to be getting a lot of editing done to it. Anyone care to discuss? Here's my view: I prefer the defenition a pronounced sexual interest in feet. Saying that it's a fetishistic interest in feet won't clarify matters for someone who doesn't know what foot fetish means. Saying that it's just a plain old interest in human feet is not accurate--it would be like saying that a pedophile is someone with an interest in children. That the feet are human is implied without saying.--63.139.120.2 19:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Definitely sexual. There is no body fetish without sexuality. Trencacloscas 00:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Propose to delete 'Aretifism' Section

I propose to completely delete the aretifism section. I realize that there is a nuanced difference between the definitions of 'aretifism' and 'podophilia'; however, I don't think this difference is significant enough to warrant a separate section for aretifism for the following reasons:

1. The difference between 'aretifism' and 'podophilia' is analogous to the difference between words like unclothed and naked. Notice that wikipedia has the good sense to direct both of the latter words to the same place, and that the corresponding article contains only the briefest discussion of the many, many synonyms for nudity.

2. Some foot fetishists may be attracted to bare feet because of their naked vulnerability (i.e., aretifism), but this attraction is no more important than fetishists who are attracted to the smell of feet, fetishists who are attracted to the humiliation, fetishists who are attracted to the shape of a foot. There is no reason to single out aretifism above the other methods of atrraction. --63.139.120.2 23:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I' am a foot fetishist myself. I think that it should be deleted because telling by what I like, I like feet with no footwear, and I like feet with flip flops in them. it doesn't matter as long as i can see the feet, so aretifism should be deleted because its the same thing as foot fetish. Mike997 02:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Mike

This is an encyclopedia article?

Just for posterity's sake, I'd like it on record that this article has changed significantly. Earlier this year, it was a rambling mishmash, heavy on opinion, low on useful facts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foot_fetishism&oldid=42683192

A month or so ago, the article was cleaned up considerably:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foot_fetishism&oldid=77607012

Now it seems to be reverting back to what we had before--graphic instructions of how to perform footjobs, a recounting of every possible predilection involving feet. Someone seems very intent on making sure that people attracted to 'college girl feet' and 'women with really big feet' are properly represented.

I don't mind being the vigilant janitor for the article, but I'd like to know that I'm not alone in thinking that the article ought to be encyclopedic, and not just chit chat that you'd expect from a foot fetish BBS. If no-one else is with me, I will respectfully allow the article to go where it appears to be headed. --Rsl12 17:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There is no need to say some of the things that were stated in the yesterdays version of this article, and it seems like they were being put in there by someone with the intelligence of a fourth grader anyway. I reverted it back to an older version, and edited back in the "Foot Fetishism in Popular Culture" section, since I had no complaint in my post. OneGiantLeap 19:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, unless you are a psychiatrist, psychologist, someone involved clinically or a foot fetishist yourself, you have no business editing this article or stipulating how it "should" look. I think the reason it keeps getting changed is because people make uninformed edits which are either insulting or blanket assumptions about foot fetishists.

I am a foot fetishist myself, so I feel I have every right to edit this article, although I do agree because I have seen some edits that seem to be very insulting. OneGiantLeap 23:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

== Surprising lack of mention of "footjobs"

I' am a foot fetishist too, I agree with OneGiantLeap I also feel as if people who know people with foot fetish, foot fetishists themselves, doctors, anyone clinically involved then you don't need to be messing with it. the old version of the article in March is kinda right, most foot fetishists.. well from my point of view it said "they like pink, red toenails, and the French pedicure is another popular one" that is true.. from what i see. but, it needs more true information. preferably, let the foot fetishists do it.. since they acutally know. doctors in the world could care less about foot fetish, and really dont bother to do anything about foot fetishists Mike997 02:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Mike

Considering handjobs and mammary intercourse have their own seperate articles, I was a bit surprised that the foot fetish article had very little mention of men who like to have sex with their partner's feet or calves. From my own experience, I've discovered that most foot fetish websites feature this particular act. I think it needs more attention than a few word's mention.

While I understand the concern that an encyclopedic entry should not relent to obscenity, I think it is difficult to discuss foot fetishism without reference to sexually explicit activity. Even if described medically there will have to be sexual activity included. Perhaps the problem could be 'cleaned up' not by deleting statements believed to be approaching pornography, but by changing them to sound more professional. For instance, a statement like "many foot fetishists enjoy having their partners wrap their feet around their penises, provoking orgasm," could be changed to "many foot fetishists use their partners' feet as copulative objects," or something like that. Simply cleaning up some crude statements can help enough that complete removal of the statement is not necessary. In some cases, merely providing a reference may help legitimize the page. Also, I'm just taking a guess here... we're all foot fetishists, aren't we? I mean, isn't that what brought us to this page to begin with? Just a theory. MikeFlynn52 03:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ted Bundy?

Why is there a discussion of Ted Bundy under Proposed explanations? His having had one does not explain the fetish, nor does it seem relevant in the article at all.154.20.234.234 23:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Too much explaination on fetishes?

I know it's relevant, but writing information in multiple places is always negative. A way to skim this down would be good. Thoughts first before edit. --MikedaSnipe 01:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

I believe, citation eight may well be dubious. Or out of context in relation to foot fetishism. Please could someone verify this ref? --92.9.183.82 (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

A quick internet search shows that the article is legitimate.--Rsl12 (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented for foot fetish/disease concurrence is circumstantial at BEST. Deleted the section until actual evidence/citation is presented. Concurrent trends do not show any sort of causal relationship. Such connections can be made between ANY two trends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.230.24 (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Psychological Reports, the journal in which the article was published, is a peer-reviewed journal. I would value the expertise of an expert panel over the judgement of an anonymous wikipedia editor. Unless there is another article available that invalidates the theory, I see no reason why it shouldn't be presented. --Rsl12 (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Frequently added and removed picture and page abuse

Status

Due to the debate on this issue, I added the censorship template to the top of the page as is found on other sex-topic discussion pages (Example: Talk:Pornography) Lordandrei (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• At this point I think we may need to relock the page and have an admin intercede. I politely request the people not remove the image in question as we're trying to get a fair opinion on it. I am admittedly still leaning towards remove on the image; however, since I don't have any fully substantial or documentable reasons; I will follow the WP:NOTCENSORED principle in the hopes of aiding a constructive discussion. Lordandrei (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for protection

• Editors to this page are voicing their opinion on this issue with Removal and Replacement of the image, rather than allowing a wiki-policy based discussion be used in this forum.
• Attempts to stabalize the page are approaching 3 revert rule violations
• Request for page protection has been made of administration until a discussion and policy can be established.
  • As the discussion concerns the appropriateness of the image, it would seem that the image in question should be left visible for discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordandrei (talk • contribs) 19:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection granted

• Article is protected against edits by admin: Chase...Cavalry as of: 13:02, 23 September 2008 until image issue is resolved in this talk page. Lordandrei (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for UNprotection

• As per WP:RFUP started with a request to protecting admin Chase...Cavalry 05:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Chase...Cavalry responds unavailable to review case and refers to direct request at WP:RFUP 14:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Request filed at WP:RFUP Lordandrei (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Page unprotected and image removed by User:Master of Puppets (Call me MoP! :)) at 21:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Lordandrei (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

• The page being locked creates the situation where supporters of the image feel like this is a win and drop the topic leaving the page and image locked in place.
• Due to the controversial nature of the image and the fact that it has already led to a potential edit war:
  • If consensus can not be decided within 2 weeks of the protection of the page, then the image in question shall be removed and no further photographic submissions shall be added to the page without talk based discussion.
    • I realize that I appear as non-impartial as I admit to leaning towards removal of the image. I'm not suggesting the removal here because of this attitude but because the debate on the issue if not confronted will leave this page locked out and kill any future expansion. Personally, regardless of my opinion, I'd rather be logically and policy based swayed to keep than to remove arbitrarily. But I also feel that the page needs to move on past this disagreement.
  • If no further constructive discussion is yielded from the current participants (e.g. Exxolon, FeHammer, Shankbone, LaLaBand) within 48 hours of the protection of the page, the issue will be elevated to the Mediation Cabal.
    • Constructive discussion is viewed as discussion that moves vehemently polarized participants towards agreed resolution.
  • Further comments should be immediately invited from participants in the Sexuality and Pornography Wiki Projects.
• Suggestion section added by: Lordandrei (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on image appropriateness under Wiki policy

-While Exxolon's picture is a strong illustration on the topic. It is admittedly fairly vivid and bordering on the graphic. There have been a stunning amount of users on the page (admittedly, many without registered accounts) that continuously attempt to remove it. This has occurred to the extent that there is now administrative action on the page. Could someone with far better Wiki-Admin knowledge comment or post links concerning picture appropriateness with regards to sexually themed entries. If we can get a strong ruling or support on this discussion page, it makes it easier to term attempted removals of the picture abuse. However, if the picture is deemed offensive and against Wiki policy; better to remove it than continually bait further vandalism. Lordandrei (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As unsettling as the image might be, it is my opinion that it is appropriate for the article but perhaps we add some context to it by noting that the fetishism is not limited to hetrosexual men or a subgenre of pornography for hetrosexual men. Has there ever been a poll of what populations are admitted foot fetishists?--Kevin586 (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any usable data from any of Kinsey's publishings? Lordandrei (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm against inclusion of Exxolon's pic. Months ago, there had been discussion about what constituted a good picture. The key issue identified what that the picture should accurately depict the concept of 'foot fetishism' without being obscene. It was noted that the picture should depict the concept of foot fetishism, as opposed to simply what turns on the average fetishist. The van Maele pic seems to do this very well. What is gained using Exxolon's pic in addition? If the point is to show that homosexuals can also engage in foot worship practices, then what's to stop people from posting pics of other aspects of foot fetishism (spanked feet, pedicured feet, feet stomping on gas pedals)? The problem is, if you do that, you end up with a mess of an article. Foot fetish isn't a complicated topic that requires many illustrations to understand. The van Maele is sufficient, I think. --Rsl12 (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

From the comments in the earlier section along with other policies I've been reading, I wonder if the Exxolon photo pushes the document to close into seeming 'fan-oriented' which steers us away from what wiki administration goes for. By that reasoning I'm leaning towards against Lordandrei (talk) 05:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I vote to remove the image. The illustration at the top of the page is all that this page needs. Gay or straight porn has no business on this page. LaLaBand (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Of course the image should be keep. Few of these arguments make much sense; for instance, Rs112 seems to be saying, "if we include less information about the topic, it negates us needing to include more" - huh? Slippery slope arguments are fallacious - having two illustrations - one a non-graphic photo of a foot in a mouth, the other an old-timey sketch at the top, is more than appropriate. If we have 20 photos of foot fetishism, then great - let's choose from the best. But we don't, so those arguments are irrelevant. We also don't remove content because "it attracts vandals" or many articles would need to be removed, such as gay, penis, anus, vagina, etc. Vandals will always find something to vandalize. --David Shankbone 12:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I didn't say we should remove it because "it attracts vandals." I asked about finding precedence on what is graphic and acceptable by wiki admin policy so that we could make a rational decision. If it is deemed unacceptable we can remove it and stop attracting people who are vandalising the page. If the page is considered acceptable, we can document the policies and then have just cause for people who continually do remove it. Lordandrei (talk) 04:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm very aware right now, not being involved in editing the article, that you neglected to provide an appropriate description for your own image. It should something like "An American foot fetishist shown ..." 202.43.238.247 (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I only hope people who never heard of a foot fetish DON'T come here to find out about it because when they see that picture they will automatically suspect all foot fetishists to be creeps. The pic is rather creepy and just really trashy to the say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.129.91 (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the very creepy looking image from the page. FeHammer (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I wish people would stop removing the image until some sense of consensus occurs. The last action of note concerning the picture was an admin action taken with the re-addition of the picture. At the rate this issue is going I am concerned about the risk of the page being locked down entirely or worse being proposed for complete deletion. Lordandrei (talk) 04:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, until some consensus and policy is established concerning the image, it's just going to be put back by those who believe it belongs here. No one on either side of the issue seems to be exercising much restraint concerning the image. Lordandrei (talk) 04:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarifications and opinions

Just to make a couple of things clear:-

• I didn't create or upload the picture so it's not "my" picture, nor do I have any agenda with regards to the sexuality of the participants.

• I advocate it's inclusion under the "illustration of subject" and WP:NOTCENSORED principles.

Exxolon (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• • "I advocate it's inclusion under the "illustration of subject"." We already have an illustration of the subject. Tis article doesn't warrant a second picture, let alone a pornographic one. LaLaBand (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have warned LaLaBand on his talk page about edit-warring, and the disturbing pattern of his edits (including offensive BLP violations) on this site over on his talk page. If his behavior continues, he and his IP address will be blocked from editing the site. --David Shankbone 05:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

LaLaBand will not be blocked for removing this creepy image any more than you will for reinserting it over and over again. It does not illustrate foot fetishism any more than hardore porn illustrates "making love". Ater Exxolon's post I noticed the image was created by David Shankbone, which is probably why he keeps putting it up there over and over again. I can't think of a more pathetic claim to fame than uploading pornography and calling it foot fetish. Image REMOVED. FeHammer (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• The core of WP:NPA is "focus on the edits, not the editors" - you have no idea why I do anything I do, and speculation leads to....personal attacks. Keep it content, and not editor, focused. Thanks. And if you haven't noticed my User page, I have far more claims to fame than a photo of someone with a foot in their mouth. But again, keep comments limited to edits, not editors, or you will be blocked from participating in the discussion. --David Shankbone 04:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I too noted that the image originator and proponent are the same person. That being said, is there any policy supporting or against self promotion of work. This also begs the question of Shankbone (who is a journalist) as to whether the image is by his own hand or one acquired. If original does it meet with the Federal guidelines of reporting the documentation of those pictured of being of age. Does it also meet the requirements behind the information listed under Personality rights Lordandrei (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note conflict of interest policy concerning image. Lordandrei (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no COI policy regarding images. See Talk:Pubic_hair#Base_principles_and_David.27s_photograph. Professional actors are used in the photograph, done by my own hand, who also signed releases. --David Shankbone 03:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added the WP:COI back to the request for external comments only because it is an issue raised by people who feel the picture is inappropriate. This way external commenters can have the chance to agree or disagree.Lordandrei (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the time to look not merely at this section you list, but the preceding sections as well. My personal concern seeing this is that this is a repeat issue of a questionable image being turned into an edit war. While there seems to have been resolution concerning the image on Pubic hair concerning that image; there still seems to be open debate about the current image here. Lordandrei (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Those are basic principles, and there is no self-promotion argument. Please stop re-adding policy arguments that do not exist. There is nothing in WP:COI that supports you on this. COI relates to text, not images. If you need clarification, ask the discussion pages at WP:COI or WP:IMAGE and they will verify. Please do so before returning inapplicable policy arguments. Please also not that User:WJBScribe is a bureaucrat on this project, and User:Raul654 is also high up in the chain, so their words should not be cast off lightly. Thanks. --David Shankbone 04:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Also a request was made of you to not remove the image further until an agreement occurred in this forum (see above: 04:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)). Continual removal based on your opinion is approaching violations in the Consensus over Democracy policy as well as the Personal attack policy based on your lack of policy driven actions and your citations that opposition is a pathetic claim to fame]]. Please limit discussion to wiki-policy driven argument and follow the process in the talk page or a request for edit blocking will have to be filed. Lordandrei (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't edit war over this. I've locked the article until we get comments from the wider community. For what it's worth: WP:NOTCENSORED. "Being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

My main objection to the image is that we already have an illustration of the subject. We don't need two. I have no idea why David Shankbone seems so invested in seeing it on here. I'd hate to speculate but I have to wonder whether he truly sees the pornographic image as "educational" and "adding to the article" or if he just wants to put gay porn on Wikipedia. LaLaBand (talk) 03:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The core of WP:NPA is "focus on the edits, not the editors" - you have no idea why I do anything I do, and speculation leads to....personal attacks. Keep it content, and not editor, focused. Thanks. --David Shankbone 04:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The flaw in your argument is that I'm not personally attacking you, nor do I intend to. I believe the question that I raised is totally relevant as to why this edit war exists in the first place. Nevertheless--with that particular argument put aside--I can stand by my initial objection. To be honest, if there ends up being no clear concensus, the only way to avoid a neverending edit war is to include a straight porn image to accompany the gay porn image. However, that kind of pragmatic appeasement isn't my preferred way of solving this. I'm just trying to be realistic. LaLaBand (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, please stick to policy on this site, and comment on content and not the contributors, as it says in the very first line of WP:NPA. The issue will not be my motivations, but whether this image is appropriate for this article, and the project as a whole. The sexuality of the subjects is irrelevant, and not a winning argument, but if there are other photos you feel suitable, by all means propose them. --David Shankbone 04:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You're asking which alternative photo should be used in place when I believe a common perception is that the artistic representation is viewed as sufficient for the article as it stands. So while the question you ask is "What's the alternative to use" the proposed answer is "No alternative to use" Lordandrei (talk) 04:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I never asked that, so please stop putting words in my mouth - you are quoting me but I did not say that. I said if he has other photos to propose, then propose them. Thanks. --David Shankbone 04:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, allow me to clarify. The wording of your statement infers that a 2nd photo will still exist; that however is one of the questions in this debate. While offered as a statement, "if there are other photos you feel suitable, by all means propose them." This is akin to the loaded question. I'm merely trying to point out that an acceptible resolution is removal without replacement. Lordandrei (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand your feeling, but nothing is ever set in stone on Wikipedia, not for any article, and we always welcome people to make proposals to improve an article, and that includes suggesting more content, or different content, than that found on the article. That simply is what this project is all about - change and improvement, and efforts toward that. So yes, I will always welcome someone to propose something they think improves the article; we all should. That isn't the same as what you are saying I said, that I never did say. Regardless, I don't see the point to all of us discussing this any further, or nit-picking as we are doing at this point. I think it would be better to let other people weigh in now. --David Shankbone 21:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to suggest any alternate images, at this point, because I still stand by my main objection. I believe the image should be deleted because we don't need a second image on this page. The image you posted adds nothing to the article that the initial image hadn't already make clear to the reader. It also seems unneeded considering the fact that (like it or not) said image is ALWAYS going to attract vandals and incite neverending edit wars. I'm fully aware that the threat of vandalism doesn't warrant deleting an image from Wikipedia. However, that added to the fact that it doesn't add anything to the article warrants a removal, in my honest opinion. LaLaBand (talk) 05:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Public Request for Comment - Image Appropriateness

RfC having been deemed completed, this request is being closed. Lordandrei (talk) Lordandrei (talk) 05:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm putting this to the RfC people because the page editors seem to be deadlocked on this issue

Request

If you vehemently have taken one side I firmly request that you not delete opposing issues. This is under a request for public commentary and can be hashed out by people who are further away from the topic. Lordandrei (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The entire conversation is listed above, but let me outline the discussion briefly:

Side Against:

1. Picture is objectionable/offensive
   1. Lacks artistic merit
   2. Gives article an unfavourable impression ("Sleazy", "Creepy")
2. Initial picture is sufficient for documenting page
3. Voiced concern about conflict of interest, self promotion
4. Is not foot fetish is a porn image taken straight from movie shoot
5. Needs to include ages of subjects to be in accordance with law
6. A flashpoint for conflict
7. Many of the opposing arguments cite: WP:NOHARM

Side For:

1. Images should not be censored.
2. Gives additional information/aspects
3. There is no COI policy regarding images; regardless, it's not an argument for or against keeping the photo, so in all respects that has no bearing on the discussion
4. Many of the arguments against are WP:IDONTLIKEIT
5. Pornography has definitions, and this fits none of them.

RFC added: Lordandrei (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The second picture is superfluous. Look at its content compared to the first picture. The only difference is the gender of the people involved, not to mention that one is an artful depiction while the other is a pornographic depiction (yet apparently Wikipedians need not care about that distinction). Nevertheless, they are likely to be interpreted by reasonable readers as depicting the same concept, that is, foot fetishism. Furthermore, if one is to argue that such a realistic picture is necessary for educational purposes (which is ridiculous, I mean how hard is to imagine what sucking toes must look like), then are pictures which depict every other facet of foot fetishism now privileged? Will we have photo after photo captioned with, "foot fetishist sniffing sock, foot fetishist massaging feet, foot fetishist with feet on face, foot fetishist being stood on by three girls, etc.? The original picture is sufficient.

Despite the fact that content cannot be removed solely because it is objectionable, we should still be realistic. What would the reasonable person conclude when they see a picture of two guys from a porn film in a wikipedia article about something other than gay porn? That the article was professional? That it offered reliable insight into foot fetishism from an objective standpoint? That it was educational? Give me a break. Education doesn't mean tossing in a bunch of superfluous pornographic pictures for the heck of it. I believe this picture ultimately serves to harm Wikipedia's purpose. Tortsarebad (talk) 04:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Responding to RFC - The second image isn't helpful to the article. Surely there is one with more merit, more interest of some kind (eg taken from some kind of notable source) or whatever. Right now it's just "picture of man apparently gnawing a disembodied limb". It's not actually helpful to the article, nor of any encyclopedic value, nor even obviously a "fetishist". Given sexual articles are socially sensitive they should where possible probably have better images that help their encyclopedic value. Very substandard. Remove and replace for that reason, rather than any censorship reason. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(And while reviewing, it's probably worth saying the article itself isn't so great either. There is surely something more that can be said other than a brief list of characteristics. Is it a recent phenomenon? Does it vary by society? Over history? By country? How have feet been seen historically in a sexual context? How is foot fetishism handled in the advertizing, porn, mainstream media, or other areas it may be visible? And so on. That is what an encyclopedia article on foot fetishism might contain, and it's all missing.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC status/results

Current opinion seems to be to remove the photographic image in question

• The leading reason is that the image does not give any beneficial addition to the article by its inclusion. WP:IMAGE
• Secondarily, while wikipedia does not condone censorship, it does condone common sense but acknowledges that there is No common sense
  • The image in question fails the reasonability rule.
  • The image in question itself has caused sufficient disagreement to stall progress on the article WP:POINT
  • The image in question caused an edit war resulting in a lock on the document WP:EW.

Issues Dismissed as not relevant:

WP:NOHARM, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:COI

If editors who have supported retention feel that this is incorrect, lacking support, or an incorrect evaluation of the comments made... Please comment as such and we can proceed to have external mediation take the case from here.

If there are no comments within 24 hours, I'll assume all sides acquiesce and agree WP:TRUCE, I'll request the protection be moved to partial protection to allow editors to contribute again. The picture will be removed. And discussion will continue here to avoid repeats of this issue.

Summary of RfC Lordandrei (talk) 05:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Now lets get rid of this god-awful photo and turn the creepy factor down. FeHammer (talk) 04:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll begin the process, but I strongly suggest aiding in coming up with some wiki policy based procedures for images in this article to prevent having repeat issues. Lordandrei (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Article is now unprotected. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 21:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Female foot fetishists

Are only men foot fetishists? Plenty of people have been named as having this fetish, yet they're all men. Is it restricted to just men? I know nothing about the subject, but I thought it might be an interesting point Doopbridge (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Actress Rosie Perez admitted to having a foot fetish on The View — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.99.5 (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2015

Why is the page protected? While most articles can be edited by anyone, semi-protection is sometimes necessary to prevent vandalism to popular pages. The reason for protection can be found in the protection log. If there are no relevant entries in the protection log, the page may have been moved after being protected. What can I do? If you have a user account, log in first. If you do not yet have an account, you may create one; after 4 days and 10 edits, you will be able to edit semi-protected pages. Discuss this page with others. For move-protected pages, see requested moves. Request unprotection of the page. Find out more about how to get started editing Wikipedia. If you have noticed an error or have a suggestion for a simple change, you can submit an edit request, by clicking the button below and following instructions. An established user may then make the change on your behalf. Please check the talk page first in case the issue is already being discussed. Submit an edit request

You can view and copy the source of this page:

Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page (help) :

Template:About (view source) (template protected) Template:Category handler (view source) (template protected) Template:Cite book (view source) (template protected) Template:Cite journal (view source) (template protected) Template:Cite news (view source) (template protected) Template:Cite web (view source) (template protected) Template:Column-count (view source) (template protected) Template:Column-width (view source) (template protected) Template:DMCA (view source) (protected) Template:Dated maintenance category (view source) (template protected) Template:Dead link (view source) (template protected) Template:Div col (view source) (template protected) Template:Div col end (view source) (protected) Template:FULLROOTPAGENAME (view source) (protected) Template:Fix (view source) (protected) Template:Fix/category (view source) (protected) Template:Hatnote (view source) (template protected) Template:Navbox (view source) (template protected) Template:Navbox subgroup (view source) (template protected) Template:Ns has subpages (view source) (template protected) Template:Paraphilia (edit) Template:Portal (view source) (template protected) Template:Pp-sock (view source) (template protected) Template:Reflist (view source) (protected) Template:See also (view source) (template protected) Template:Sex fetish (view source) (semi-protected) Template:Sexual fetishism (view source) (semi-protected) Template:Side box (view source) (protected) Template:Sister project (view source) (template protected) Template:Str left (view source) (protected) Template:Use dmy dates (view source) (template protected) Template:Wiktionary (view source) (template protected) Module:Arguments (view source) (template protected) Module:Category handler (view source) (template protected) Module:Category handler/blacklist (view source) (template protected) Module:Category handler/config (view source) (template protected) Module:Category handler/data (view source) (template protected) Module:Category handler/shared (view source) (template protected) Module:Citation/CS1 (view source) (protected) Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration (view source) (protected) Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation (view source) (template protected) Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist (view source) (protected) Module:Effective protection level (view source) (template protected) Module:File link (view source) (template protected) Module:Hatnote (view source) (template protected) Module:Namespace detect/config (view source) (protected) Module:Namespace detect/data (view source) (protected) Module:Navbar (view source) (template protected) Module:Navbox (view source) (template protected) Module:No globals (view source) (template protected) Module:Ns has subpages (view source) (template protected) Module:Portal (view source) (template protected) Module:Portal/images/s (view source) (template protected) Module:Protection banner (view source) (protected) Module:Protection banner/config (view source) (protected) Module:See also (view source) (template protected) Module:Side box (view source) (template protected) Module:TableTools (view source) (template protected) Module:Unsubst (view source) (template protected) Module:Yesno (view source) (protected) Return to Foot fetishism.

Navigation menu Create accountNot logged inTalkContributionsLog inArticleTalkReadView sourceView history

Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article Donate to Wikipedia Wikipedia store Interaction Help About Wikipedia Community portal Recent changes Contact page Tools What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Page information Wikidata item Languages Privacy policyAbout WikipediaDisclaimersContact WikipediaDevelopersMobile view — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.32.192.19 (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Foot fetishism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130715003535/http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/style/fashion/article64685.ece to http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/style/fashion/article64685.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

"Women who have have smaller feet have prettier faces"

This statement was made my men who took part in a study. There are 2 face composites made from women with larger feet and women with smaller feet. The smaller foot women composite was deemed more attractive. Perhaps a sentence could be added on the causes section? Maybe men like pretty small feet because they are attached to pretty women?

Source: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19118-why-men-are-attracted-to-women-with-small-feet/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.83.193 (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2016

I want to be able to add more details and facts as I myself is feet lover so I know what its like. DemonHunter KnD (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Not Safe

The premier episode "Carpe Do 'Em" has Nikki spend several minutes talking about this and attends a foot fetish party. Do we have a section discussing references to this in popular culture? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Additional information

"Self worship" is a prominent activity as well and perhaps warrants mention. Fimbulvintur (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2016

1.180.233.196 (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Arbor Fici (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

perspective and scope of article

There is another problem with this article. It only focusses on female feet and on the USA.These are massive issues, as there are women who like male feet, though not as many as men who like female ones, and foot fetish is very common inthe gay community. There are many more gay foot fetish sites than straight ones, the article mentions youtube, yet it fails to notice how many gay foot fetish videos there are on it. There are even gay brand specialisms in trainers, worth mentioning Reebok classics in the UK (THE foot fetish trainer here), All Stars Converese worldwide, etc. Moreover,the plethora of gay foot fetish figures far exceeds the straight one: chavs, skaters, soldiers, builders, footballers etc, while straight foot fetish fantasies are limited in setting (mainly homes), gay ones span from gyms/locker rooms, parks, even the underground; I have personally seen men worhipping male feet in cinemas, clubs, on the street, even in classrooms; of course, there are lots of gay foot fetish clubs, only in London there are at least 6 or 7 major clubs and at least 2 foot-fetish oriented pubs. The second issue is that foot fetsih is a major sexual activity in many countries, especially in Europe (UK, Germany and France leading)while the article only talks about 'America'. I know a photographer in London with a Masters Degree in fetish; he has written a series of articles on foot fetish. Even the Ohio University Study is just a joke! The idea is that foot fetish is a safe alternative to penetrative sex (by the way, there ARE condoms). It may be so in rare occasions, but most times foot sex is not instead of, but together with penetrative sex, either as part of the same experience or happening together, and foot sex can be penetrative, and like fisting, it is even less safe than phallic penetration (one is more likely to scar the tissue, plus fisting and the foot alternative are the main 'clprits' of the spread of hep, as to syphilis, it can be transmitted orally, so the very study is flawed, when I say orally, I mean even by kissing).

I agree Fimbulvintur (talk) 07:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Jane

Can Thomas Jane can be considered as foot fetishism because I see in google, there are a lot of his barefoot photos? Ajeem95 (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2017

Famous foot fetishists:

Ricky Martin  Tx87 (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Foot fetishism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071018035445/http://podiatry.curtin.edu.au/fetish.html to http://podiatry.curtin.edu.au/fetish.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/style/fashion/article64685.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

More notable names to add

Here's a listing of notable celebrities with foot fetish not yet listed on the page:

Ricky Martin Lil B Tommy Lee Orlando Bloom Tyler the Creator Bradley Cooper (rumoured?) Danny Brown T.I. Charlie Sheen Alex Rodriguez Britney Spears Ludacris Big Boi Redman David Boreanaz Idris Elba Norman Reedus Meek Mill Mark Ballas Christian Slater Rex Ryan David Boreanaz David Williams Ted Bundy

Google-search results sources quite easily for them, but feel free to ask for help in case they're needed for listing them. Scarlett2i2 (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd edit the names in but it's semi-protected so I can't currently do it. MessagesPhone (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Famous names-list

→‎Notable foot fetishists: A very common fetish, this cherrypicked list could go on ad infinitum / much of it is poorly sourced, possibly contentious and about living people]

I agree with the fact that the sources should be checked out better but not with the fact that its 'commoness' should be the factor why it's completely removed. Even if it's one of the most common fetishes, the names included are basically the ones known to the public with their admissions. I think it's an anomaly enough to deserve its own 'notable figures' category for that reason, just with more accurate links/clear admissions. MessagesPhone (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

(Can't edit posts on the phone, it seems, hence the doublepost)

The point being, famous atheists and tenors (to name two category examples) are valid categories (of two very common things) for the names to be listed so I'm sure famous people with foot fetishes could pass all the same. Wouldn't the admission of the celebrity be enough, in this case? MessagesPhone (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Add Foot Worship

Add comparison to history like here foot worship It is essential to talk about how foot fetish is evolving an accepted in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gettingtoknownyou (talk • contribs) 14:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2017

Foot fetish might not be seen as a fetish anymore in the future. Foot fetish gets accepted more and more, and both men and women use feet in sexual acts. [19]

[19] Why having a foot fetish is ok and you shouldn't care https://foot-worship.net/blogs/1/3/why-having-a-foot-fetish-is-ok-and-you-shouldn-t-care Gettingtoknownyou (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

removal of paragraph

I removed a paragraph from the causes section [1]. I was checking this [2] new addition when I realized that the cited source did not support any of the claims in the paragraph. There's no mention of many foot fetishists recalling childhood incidents, or any of the rest of it. It has been in the article for some time, so I don't know if a reference has been lost or if it was never properly sourced. Meters (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

It was never properly sourced. It was added July 8 2016 as part of this edit [3] by User:Ghoul flesh. Meters (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Please link Ramachandran to V. S. Ramachandran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.254.1.179 (talk) 08:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. Meters (talk) 09:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

General organization of article needs improvement

For one thing, "Causes" should be its own section, not under "Example cases." There is also information under the "Health and disease" section that has nothing to do with that topic. I've tried to make these edits myself but they were reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diogenes64 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I'm taking a stab at reorganization myself, separating out causes and examples, and making the health and disease section (which covers one particular hypothesis) a subsection of causes. BrightVamp (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

References supporting more men than women have foot fetishes

None of the four citations I tagged are studies supporting that more men than women have foot fetishes. One is a letter to the editor, one is a popular book ("Brief Encounters: The Women's Guide to Casual Sex"), one is a 63 year old review, and the Scorolli article is a scientific study, but doesn't appear to mention gender or men or women at all. There should be at least one solid study cited about foot fetishism and gender, especially if the idea that more men than women have foot fetishes is to be given such a prominent place in the article. BrightVamp (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I've now had some time to poke around in the scientific literature, and I don't see anything close to a strong, evidence-based consensus of foot fetishism being more common in men. Therefore I removed this claim from the article's opening along with the irrelevant citations, and deemphasized it in the prevalence section. However I have found one small but high quality Belgian survey supporting this idea, and I have added it. BrightVamp (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

There is not much research on this topic. While it is well-documented that sexual fetishism and paraphilias are significantly more common among men than among women, I certainly agree that we need reliable academic sources that specifically state that foot fetishism is more common among men than among women before stating it as fact in WP:WIKIVOICE. And even if a very old source states this, it's best not to include it unless giving it WP:In-text attribution. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

____

References