posted
I don't think it has really digressed. Some people expressed that they would like to see the faces of the models in order for them to be interested in his prospective material, so the discussion evolved into a civilized discussion about preferring or not preferring faces. As long as it stays civilized, I don't see the harm in that.
Everyone has their own preference.
Posts: 1326 | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged |
Now Lily? If she has nice arches, nice wrinkles and overrall sexy feet then hell yes!
My point is I would pick Lily Munster over Marilyn Munster if the feet were sexier and her footjob skills were better. Marilyn might look better in the face but we're not talking about faces here...this is all about foot fetish stuff. Herman wouldnt even be in the equation because I can tell the difference between a male foot as opposed to a female foot. Posts: 949 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was a site online some years ago that was "feet only." After a year or so the person came out and admitted to being a cross dresser and yeah, lots of dudes felt oh so dirty.
It's true that many times you can tell the difference, but the way the world is now, I'm sure some would slip thru the cracks. And yes, if they did themselves up that nicely, you still might not be able to tell when their face is shown.
Bruce Jenner footjobs for the loss!
I'd just rather see a female in addition to her feet because I also like the whole package. It's like when I see a pair of feet in public, I ALWAYS look up to see what the person looks like. Now, if I see a person before their feet, if she's not attractive to me, I'm not checking out to see if her feet are nice. If she's hot and her feet aren't, then that sucks. But I like average to above average on the entire package.
Patrick
P.S. As for Myndi Fox, I can imagine there are a lot of people on the internet now who have no clue who she is. She was quite the hit, but I think I still had dial up when I first discovered her.
posted
Well articulated Patrick, my sentiments as well.
If I see a female and I don't find her attractive at least in some capacity, what her feet look like makes no difference to me. If what I see first is a nice pair of feet, I want to see who they belong to and if I don't find her attractive, then her possessing pretty feet is moot to me.
Fortunately, it's almost a certainty that pretty girls will tend to possess pretty feet. Average at the least. Of course, there's always exceptions, as even a broken clock is right twice a day, but in my experience you're more often than not, not disappointed when it comes to a pretty girl possessing nice feet.
Posts: 1326 | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well in my opinion, when you're looking for all that, you're looking for more than just a "foot fetish". When u say the terms ____ fetish it's because u focus or key in on a particular body part. Not that body part PLUS a pretty face. Saying u need face, eyes, smile etc, etc plus feet is not the same thing as a foot fetish IMO. That's actually an oxymoron. People with hand, hair and any other kind of fetish are mainly looking for that body part for sexual satisfaction. Of course any of us would want the whole package but I really wouldn't think it's required if u have a pair of extremely sexy feet.
If I see a 10 in the face but she's only a 4 as far as her feet but also see a woman who's face is a 4 but feet are a 10 I'm going for the feet that are a 10 if we're talking strictly sexual. Looking for or "needing" to have a certain level of facial beauty for ur attraction to a woman's feet to kick in is the exact opposite of a foot fetish.
There's a porn star named Ms. Cleo...she looks like she's been smacked in the face with a bag of nickels but her ass is out of this world! Really huge ass and she bounces it with the best of em. She's famous with ass men because of her one "asset" (pun intended lol) that booty!
This is why I brought up Mona Lisa... Shes attractive but she's also up there in age but If u ask me would I spend the night with Mona Lisa, OR a younger looking beauty who's feet are only a 6 I'm taking Mona Lisa every day of the week.
And I'm sorry but I really feel bad for anyone who can't differentiate between a man and a woman's feet and could be so easily duped or fooled. If u need reassurance then u probably should leave those feet alone. Just my .02
posted
It's no doubt true that all some people need to see is 10 toes, presumably female, but I believe the majority of enthusiasts like to see a pretty face to go along with the feet.
Probably why poses with feet and face visible are the most popular angles. Also explains why the hotter the girl, the better her feet tend to be rated, and why female celebrity feet are so wildly popular.
Who the feet belong to makes all the difference in the world to me, but everyone has their own standards and preferences.
posted
Just because the fetish is for the feet, it doesn't mean that your liking has to derived ONLY from the feet themselves. If this were true, then foot fetishists would be turned on by feet of whatever sex, feet of family members, or any other taboo subject I care not to get into here. There is a bigger picture.
I bet you hands down that some of the people you see in the People of Wal-Mart site happen to have some feet, sporting nice pedicures. Saying that ugly, straight up hideous women are incapable of having pretty feet would be wrong. Just like saying a total knockout can't have ugly feet would be. As much as I want to know the female the feet belong to looks, I've seen quite a few head turners out there with feet that, quite frankly, look like male feet or are just busted!
I have no desire to do this idea and it's totally against the policy of this forum, but I bet you if there were photos randomly stuck on this forum of some cross dressers, transsexuals, etc. that were feet only, there would be people on this board complimenting them. As a matter of fact, since this is the "internet," I'm sure it has happened.
quote: As a matter of fact, since this is the "internet," I'm sure it has happened.
I KNOW it's already happened and I was cringing and laughing at the same time as people blew their wads without even realizing it. The phrase "Finkle & Einhorn" from Ace Ventura comes to mind while using a plunger on your face.
--------------------
Join thousands of our fans on Twitter @Norcalfeetdotco Posts: 18305 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
GGN also makes a very good point that I hadn't considered.
The staggering popularity of celebrity feet is a testament to how much of a factor face and image plays for many foot enthusiasts; having the propensity to rate average looking feet higher on their favorite celebrity than what they otherwise would if they were the same feet on your everyday, average looking woman. Wikifeet provides a good example of this.
Also, I've noticed that in threads with images posted, occasionally when you click on the image (depending on the image host, imagevenue does this for instance), the number of times that particular image has been clicked on and viewed is displayed underneath the image. The image(s) that show the feet/soles with the girl's face also visible tend to have overwhelmingly more views than the images that just exclusively show her feet. I don't think that's an accident.
As I've stated and others have echoed, we all have our own personal preferences and tastes. There's no right or wrong way to enjoy feet, it's whatever suits you. We all have different standards and expectations; some higher than others, some lower than others.
Like Patrick also stated, if the logic of "it's called foot fetish not face fetish, so you're supposed to exclusively like feet" is applied, then theoretically, the gender of the feet shouldn't matter, who they belong to shouldn't matter, etc. In fact, I actually believe this is a common misconception regarding foot fetish to individuals who don't possess one and don't understand what it entails, and possibly why some find it so idiosyncratic and "weird". They presume that having a foot fetish means that you just like/get off on feet in general. Male or female, pretty or ugly, etc.
Obviously, that isn't the case and there is a much bigger picture.
Posts: 1326 | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Patrick: Just because the fetish is for the feet, it doesn't mean that your liking has to derived ONLY from the feet themselves. If this were true, then foot fetishists would be turned on by feet of whatever sex, feet of family members, or any other taboo subject I care not to get into here. There is a bigger picture.
Patrick
Ahhh but see that was one of my points. You SHOULD be able to distinguish between male and female feet from the jump, without even having to see the face. I've NEVER had that problem. Most of you responding to this have sites of your own and in your sites you display feet AND faces so thats obviously your preference, but how many other number of websites have been popular WITHOUT showing all models faces OR having models that were not so glamorous/just "average looking"??
This was my point about Mona Lisa. (which nobody seems to want to touch) Do most of you think she's a knockout as far as facial beauty? Would you pick a beauty queen with "OK" feet over Mona Lisa??? I sure wouldnt. Patrick, IMO most of your models on your site are not on the level of Adams site (feetfair) when it comes to facial beauty but the quality of the feet is right there on par with his models so you guys are neck and neck and I wouldnt pick his site over yours because its all about the FOOT FETISH. Some of you are putting far too much value on something that I personally dont think matters all that much.
Now dont get me wrong, would you PREFER to have a perfect ten from head to toe?? Hell Yeah!! You'd be a fool not to. But to act like its a requirement, when most of these foot models are not your typical "beauty queens" anyway is absurd.
When this whole internet foot fetish thing really kicked off, most of the popular models were either average looking, or you couldnt see their faces. Kim from KimsKastle was cute, Bellecita was kinda "tomboyish" but had her sexiness to her, Myndi Fox rarely showed her face at all, the model from www.footalicious.com NEVER showed her face (and she gave some A+ footjobs) footpixies.com still to this day has women whose faces we never see...Lexi was about the only exception from back in the day. All were decent in their own way, but the focus was never, ever, EVER on the facial beauty of these women. Always on the feet.
This is why the footfetish scene is getting watered down with women who are not really into foot fetish stuff nowadays because you're getting away from what made it popular in the first place which was a woman's feet.
Most of these barbie doll models dont give a fuck about your attraction to their feet and are just doing it to make a buck and they get away with it because they have a pretty smile or cute dimples..etc..etc.
If you get back to women who are genuinely INTO it that have sexy feet and stop looking for the stereotypical beauty queen and trying to MAKE them into it, the quality of the material will be much better IMO. Bellecita nor Kim (Kimskastle) look like Jennifer Aniston or Halle Berry but I guarantee you that if you're looking for some foot fetish material, you wont have to guess or hope that they know what they're doing.
And you also have to keep in mind that there is an anonymity that goes along with foot fetish stuff that a lot of women like. They dont HAVE to show their faces because the focus is on the feet so dont take that away from them. Like I said, if you need help distinguishing between male or female feet, and just HAVE to see the face to tell the difference, then you probably shouldnt even deal in the first place. And then people wonder why most of the foot fetish material features women who seem like they're faking or are not into feet.
Most of the women that I see that do the best foot fetish stuff dont fit into that criteria of mainstream beauty, but they shouldnt have to for foot fetish material. And yes, I'm sure we're going to have to just agree to disagree but like I said before, thats just my .02 Posts: 949 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BareSoles84: Like Patrick also stated, if the logic of "it's called foot fetish not face fetish, so you're supposed to exclusively like feet" is applied, then theoretically, the gender of the feet shouldn't matter, who they belong to shouldn't matter, etc. In fact, I actually believe this is a common misconception regarding foot fetish to individuals who don't possess one and don't understand what it entails, and possibly why some find it so idiosyncratic and "weird". They presume that having a foot fetish means that you just like/get off on feet in general. Male or female, pretty or ugly, etc.
Obviously, that isn't the case and there is a much bigger picture.
Nope. This doesnt work because if you're heterosexual then what you like (fetishes and all) would automatically be on the opposite sex. Theres no attraction to any body part of the same sex as yourself.
If I like asses would I have to SPECIFY that I'm talking about a woman's ass and not a mans?
I'm a straight male so the answer should be automatic. This also goes back to what I said about you SHOULD be able to tell the difference between a man/woman's feet without even seeing the face.
Posts: 949 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
However, one element I think you're not considering is that in our collective society and to the average person, asses are a body part that are considered an "acceptable" body part to be attracted to on the opposite sex (or whichever sex you're attracted to) and are recognized as being within the "norm". Asses, breasts, genitalia, etc.
Feet to most people, are precisely that: feet. Male or female, it's all one in the same to them. They're usually found humorous because of the stigmas that are commonly associated with them and being that they are something "different" to take an interest in. I believe that only foot enthusiasts would be able to accurately differentiate between a male and a female foot, being that it's an included area of interest to them. To the average person who has no added or enhanced interest in feet, someone's feet are merely someone's feet, regardless of who they belong to.
This is why I do believe that this is a common misconception when it comes to foot fetish to individuals who don't possess one. If you tell someone you're into "feet", it's not unfathomable to presume they may interpret that as meaning that you simply get off on feet in general, and that all you need to see is exclusively a pair of feet and that is enough to get you excited and aroused. This could potentially be a factor in why it's sometimes perceived as being so idiosyncratic and "weird".
Obviously, the members on this site are only interested in female feet, and even so, having a female foot fetish doesn't invariably mean that you are attracted to any woman that possesses 10 toes.
The average person with no interest in feet, I believe would not automatically know this.
A clip of famous foot fetishist Andrew Derosier during an interview on 98Rock TV that helps delineate the point I'm attempting to make. He briefly sucks the hostess's toes at the end, and as a warning, the host shows his feet mid interview. However, the dialogue exchanged helps reinforce my point, as mentioned.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Thumbs Up]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Thud]](graemlins/thud.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Mmm]](graemlins/mmm.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
