Talk:Foot fetishism

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)