I became interested in why foot fetishes occur recently.
Basically, it’s the same reason why breasts are considered sexual (they aren’t) - it’s all about novelty. If we lived in a nudist colony, neither feet, nor breasts would be considered sexy.
Feet get covered by shoes, making then more novel.
Tribal cultures dont regarded breasts, or feet, as sexy.
Though it begs the question, if nudity became normalized, then what would be novel?
People would find personalities, voices, power dynamics, and fantasies more or less erotic than they are now (for most people).
Nudists are weird people and I wouldn’t accept what they have to say about sexuality at face value.
Nudists think people who wear clothes and dont question whether their shame is vindicated are weird. I’m inclined to agree with them lol.
Honestly visiting an onsen was somewhat of an eye opener. I felt pretty comfortable with my body when all these normal dudes were naked and nobody cared about each others bodys.
I’m not surprised since your OP is boilerplate nudist justification and not really any exploration of paraphilia.
I think there’s a mile in between puritanical shame and thinking the body isn’t and shouldn’t be considered sexual and is fit for public consumption. Why is it important to desexualize the human body? What’s the benefit?
My guy we are literally the only creature on the entire planet with a sense of shame who covers our body. If you don’t think there’s benefit to at least understanding why this enormous difference exists, I can’t even begin to fathom what your mind is like
There’s a hell of a lot that separates us from other animals. Throw your smartphone in the trash and go frolic in the woods for the rest of your life if you are so convinced that thousands of years of human socialization is a mistake.
I don’t like being called a deviant…because I like that wearing clothes is the norm? Maybe in return I’d posit that you’re actually a bunch of perverts who enjoy casual sexual encounters, and all this talk about normalization is bullshit?
Show me where I said we should reject all human progress and revert to animals.
No, I simply said we should evaluate the social choices made by humanity, even ones as old as clothing. I’m not saying we should reject it all; I’m saying we should be thoughtful and investigate these things to find out if they hold true or not.
Personally, I think in the case of nudity and shame, we’ll quickly find it doesn’t really hold much water beyond empty religious mumbo-jumbo.
And who exactly is calling you a deviant for liking clothing? Was it not you who came in with the statement, “Nudists are weird people and I wouldn’t accept what they have to say about sexuality at face value,” and now you’re trying to act like you’re just responding to some sort of victimization from nudists of all people after throwing the first punch? Come on, dude.
But I’m sure it all does just come down to religious mumbo-jumbo bullshit for you because you said “perverts who enjoy casual sexual encounters,” as if a healthy casual sexual encounter is somehow a “perversion.”
So, like… grow up and get better opinions, maybe?
I said “weird.” Furries are weird, those people who plaster their cars with bumper stickers are weird. That doesn’t mean that they’re bad or we have to do something about them. “Deviant” probably wasn’t the right word because what you insinuated with
I can’t even begin to fathom what your mind is like
Is much worse.
Hence, I said that last bit to make you mad, not because I actually believed that. Why should I just take your bullshit on the nose and move on?
There is nothing wrong with casual sex. There is something wrong with liking casual sex and simultaneously berating people for being horny or casting unwanted gazes.
Gives people the choice whether they want to be sexualized or no. Like you shouldn’t have to wear a giant form-disguising hoodie just to keep from being ogled.
I suppose I could see that. I’m assuming you’re a woman or female-presenting cause that’s not something I can fully empathize with as a dude. But you do have the choice of dressing how you want to be perceived, no? I’m sure there are other options beyond wearing a trash bag of a top.
Though it begs the question: if nudity became normalized, then what would be novel?
Not an sexologist or even a sexy anthropologist, but my intuition is that aesthetic attraction would always be a factor (since it doesn’t rely on sexual attraction), and that acting in a sexually provocative would be the way to provoke the horny gaze.
It might be nice to have less sexualization of people just be virtue of their existing in a sexualized body. That’s the dream, anyway.
I would phrase that near-last sentiment, “…in a sexy body.” instead. No one should be oggled simply for being sexy, but if they are sexualizing themselves, (like dressing up for a night club) I’d argue that can indicate a desire to be oggled. They still should not be objectified, but when someone is trying to look sexy, I bet most people would be disappointed to get zero glances.
We’re on thin ice here, because some people conflate dressing sexily with looking cool more than wanting to be desired sexually, but in general I agree with your edit.
Yea, that’s why I said nightclub, where social interaction and maybe sexyness is generally a significant part.
If someone simply looks sexy in their work uniform… yea, not the best time unless there are other clues. lol
This doesn’t work.
If it were only about novelty, then why aren’t there more bellybutton fetishes?
Being a fetish-having person, I can tell you there there is more than just an attraction to the object of your desire. It is a primal, deep, uncontrollable NEED to see or touch the object.
I am not a foot fetishist, so I do not presume to know the intimate details of what they like, but I can promise you, it has nothing to do with novelty. Fetishes have so many variants also; there are foot fetishes, sock fetishes, feet squishing stuff, toenail paint things, some want a footjob, some want to lick them or suck on toes, some people like big feet, small feet, the list goes on and on.
Maybe read just a tiny bit? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_fetishism#Cause
Welll for one, giving your partner a foot massage usually ends up in them feeling better. Nobody does that with belly buttons.
Dressed people ofc!
What do tribal cultures regard as sexy?
In many tribal societies, the erotic focus isn’t on specific body parts like breasts or feet; it’s on signs of fertility, health, and social status. things like wide hips, smooth skin, body paint, scarification, or even dance.
“I want to stress this finding is not final” - researcher of study.
Relatively small sample size of one group of peoples.
Meanwhile, we have numerous examples of cultures where tits hang loose on the daily, and aren’t seen as inherently arousing.
But the implication that breasts signal cues about health is kinda a no brainer. It’s why obese people aren’t considered attractive (dont cross post this on tumblr).
Meanwhile, we have numerous examples of cultures where tits hang loose on the daily, and aren’t seen as inherently arousing.
Source? Not to say you’re lying, I’d just like to read more about it
The Aka and Ngandu (Central African Republic)
The Himba (Namibia)
The Trobriand Islanders (Papua New Guinea)
The Nuba (Sudan)
It’s why obese people aren’t considered attractive
If you look up the definition of what is considered “obese” for your height, I think you’d find this is largely false.
…what are you talking about?
Women, mostly
It raises or prompts that question.
I beg your pardon?
NSFW:
When I fuck people their feet are in my face. I always thought what I was looking at was sexy when fucking, but I agree. Forbidden fruit and all that.
I mean sure, you do you. If everyone wore gloves in a parallel timeline, you’d probably want chin scratches.
nah, i have somewhat of a hand fetish and it has nothing to do with how hidden or not they are, i just think hands are inherently attractive if they look nice and feminine. Also big part of it is how sensitive the fingertips are, touching sensitive parts is just always gonna be nice.
why breasts are considered sexual (they aren’t)
Breasts and feet are both sensitive and responsive to touch. If you’ve ever Netflix-and-Chilled, a foot rub is a classic opening move. Meanwhile, teasing someone’s nipple is very normal foreplay.
You’re not picking up what I’m laying down.
I’m not arguing that feet and breasts aren’t capable of proving sexual stimulation from a first person perspective. I’m saying at from a third person perspective, theres nothing about them which inherently arousing; that arousal stems from novelty.
I’m saying that from a third person perspective, theres nothing about them which inherently arousing
There seems to be ample evidence to the contrary. Whole pornographic industries exist to cater to people aroused by pictures of people in various states of undress.
You’re still not getting it. The key word here is ‘inherently’.
The sexual interest in people of different states of undress, or specific attire, is just another form of novelty, and influenced by culture.
The key word here is ‘inherently’.
Name something that is inherently sexy.
You’re asking the wrong question. The point isn’t to name something “inherently sexy”, the point is that nothing is.
“Sexy” isn’t an objective property of an object or body part; it’s a subjective response rooted in psychology, biology, and culture. Trying to find something “inherently sexy” is like trying to find something inherently funny or inherently sad. it only makes sense in relation to the observer’s mind.
Feet, breasts, lingerie, whatever… they’re all loaded with associative meaning, shaped by exposure, taboo, and novelty. The fact that entire industries exist around them doesn’t prove inherent arousal; it proves market demand for culturally conditioned preferences.
If breasts were inherently sexy, then every culture in history would have treated them as such, and that’s just not the case. Look at tribes where breasts are no more sexual than elbows.
Fetish, attraction, arousal… it’s all downstream of context. Nothing’s inherently sexy. That’s the whole damn point.
Feet, breasts, lingerie, whatever… they’re all loaded with associative meaning, shaped by exposure, taboo, and novelty.
One of these things is not like the other.
If breasts were inherently sexy, then every culture in history would have treated them as such
Naked bodies are inherently sexy and every culture in history has treated them as such. The details vary by the presenter, with different individuals and venues paying special attention to this or that attribute. But you’re arguing against the “inherentness” of human attraction to other humans.
That’s not a discussion of artistic (or, I guess, pornographic) merit. It’s merely an expression of an asexual subjective view.
And that’s why you’re stumbling. You don’t seem to want to acknowledge other human bodies as sexy. You’re blinded by your own personal biases and projecting it onto others.
Nothing’s inherently sexy
Humans are inherently sexy. That’s why they have sex with each other.
Me.
Just like mouth, ears and all kind of body parts are capable of providing sexual stimulation without being considered arousing in the sense we still view breasts/ass and such.
Precisely. It’s amazing how people have misinterpreted what I’ve been saying lol.
People get emotional around this topic pretty fast. Don’t take the downvotes personally, i found your statements perfectly rational.
Breasts are sexual. They’re secondary sex characteristics.
That’s interesting
…that’s not what secondary sex characteristic means. As the article you linked says, that just means physical characteristics unrelated to the reproductive system that differ between the sexes. Some of the other examples given include the Adam’s apple in men and longer arms relative to height in women. While some of these things can be sexually attractive or related to sexual attractiveness in some way, certainly we don’t societally put them in the same sexual category as women’s breasts.
Ooo baby look at that apple BOB–yeah drain that cup, waterboy
Breasts are larger than they need to be, and they’re that size all the time. One hypothesis is that they’re used to signal sexual maturity and attract mates.
But aside from that, breasts and nipples are definitely a bigger erogenous zone than most parts of the body, probably second only to genitals. And they’re directly involved in reproduction as you need them to feed babies.
And most importantly, most societies view them as sexual even if some don’t. So what makes something sexual anyway? That’s a subjective thing, it works by consensus.
Not everyone’s nipples are sensitive FYI.
yeah that’s how being an organic being works, some people will always differ from the norm, that doesn’t really… mean anything?
It means they exist (see trans rights). Though yes, it doesn’t really speak to what a society must accept as sexualized that something simply exists in counter to the norm.
To think such silly things is equivalent to religious people trying to protect their kids from “catching the gay” or becoming a lesbian simply because they met one. Just because it exists doesn’t mean it has to become a norm for everyone, and just because it exists doesn’t suddenly redefine the norm. Such braindead thoughts show up in far too many places. (like the previous comment)
It’s not abnormal. It’s just a type of person.
I get a lil triggered when we start talking about people and then start gesturing to this average/normal platonic homunculus as if they represent humanity, especially in the context of using biological “truths” to justify/explain social phenomena.
And some people are asexual, doesn’t mean that most people aren’t.
It’s not even that unusual. But I was talking about actual people, not most people.
Just pointing out for the young people in the audience – some people will get nothing out of nipple play, but sadly put on a show anyway. Best to check.
Right. Breasts serve a function related to reproduction - feeding children. But breast size is largely decoupled from a given breast’s ability to feed children. So why do some women have needlessly big breasts? Because breasts are an example of human sexual dimorphism, and so emphasizing them increases sexual fitness since potential mates’ brains will think “boobs = female = horny. More boobs = more female = more horny.”
So is thick back hair
Hey, some people love body hair, so you’re not disproving much.
Yes, but I’m talking about arousal. The distinction between the adjective and verb of ‘sex’ is important lol.
A thsound fan fics will disagree with this.
I always wondered about this. Like what if it’s just one person, who is extremely prolific?
And now you might say, “There’s a dozen accounts.”
Well what if they are extremely prolific and made multiple accounts?
There’s the wonderbread guy - probably thousands of pictures of women buying wonderbread and talking on the phone about how much they want to burn down the Amazon rainforest.
Another one is this guy who’s into this deadly sunscreen stuff - like lesbians killing each other with evil sunscreen.
Both probably have spent thousands of dollars commissioning artists to draw these fetishes for them.
My weird 4chan archive has a guy where /b/ got together to draw a comic fulfilling his greatest wish - his lizard man OC getting vored, digested and shit out by a tuba.
Not a foot fetishist, eh?
But you did post a Sonic meme… sideyes
When I think fetishistic Sonic content, I think inflation and not feet.
honestly I’m just glad I don’t have a shit fetish
So many possibilities just flushed down the toilet…
Oh well. There they go. A shame I guess.
Anyway.
I like the theory that the reason people like feet is because the area of the brain that controls your feet is close to the area that makes you feel things and in some people the “wires” can cross:
https://www.audacy.com/987thespot/latest/biologist-explains-why-some-people-have-foot-fetishes
I feel like this is absurd with even a little bit of thought. Why does this sort of explanation apparently only work for feet and not other fetishes? Why does it matter if wires can get crossed for nerves in the feet if most people with foot fetishes are into other people’s feet and not having things done to their own feet? This gets mentioned a lot online but it makes no sense.
Feet are hot cause i can feel a lot of emotion through them
What’s wrong with feet?
Yeah I’m grateful I’m just into normal things like pain
we like the pain
we like the pain
Also all the shit the sonic freaks are into.
Surprisingly Sonic isn’t pregnant here.
yet
Fella haven’t seen pretty feet yet.
As a non-foot guy, I’m curious what you think would turn me
Kids. Thank god I’m not attracted to kids. Or animals. Anything else is fair game. Feet attached to a consenting adult are fine. Don’t see the big deal. I like to spit-shine the rusty sheriff’s badge, so why the fuck would I care if someone likes a boring regular appendage like a foot? 🤷
Unless there’s some angle to this non-foot people don’t understand? Like, maybe being turned on by feet is comorbid with an uncontrollable need to blast rope over any uncovered foot you see? Now that would suck.
I’m trying real hard to figure what a rusty sheriff badge is an allegory for
… OH
Chocolate starfish, leather cheerio, balloon knot.
I don’t know what a cheerio is but the others I can see. Thanks for clarifying
They’re great for breakfast!
This looks like what I would call a beignet, and indeed I can see the resemblance with the sheriff’s badge
Tongue-punching the fart box
metric superiority
I think I just have a woman fetish. I’ve had “oh damn” moments with various body parts on different women over the years. Feet, hands, decolletage, ears, eyebrows… all sorts.
deviant
Look at this graph! 📈
But sonic has SO MUCH foot to be attracted to.
Ah well, at least you still have sonic inflation.
