As the subject line says, I have a hypothesis I'd like to test in my life. In fact, I'd like to test it multiple times as well as via a multiple variety of methods. That in mind, I am also going to hypothesize that the more rigorous the method of testing, the more probable my prediction will appear. I'll restate and highlight the hypothesis below.
Hypothesis: There is One Foot Type That is Objectively Beautiful
Before delving deeper into the 'whys' or 'hows' underpinning my hypothesis, I'll describe features of the the foot type I think is 'objectively beautiful:
1. Petite in girth and length 2. Hourglass-like curvature rendering the soles and arches shapely. 3. A sort of 'delicateness' is accentuated by (1,2) above.
So far in my hypothesis, there's no stipulation for whether the feet have a soft texture or whether they exude some sort of aroma, although I'd predict the former likely to hold to some grain of truth over the latter.
I extract my predictions from studies on cross-cultural studies on perceptions of beauty, including but not limited to those that focus on congenitally blind men. Some of these studies asked questions regarding basic facial features while some others tested questions pertaining to female body shape. Consequently, these studies appeared to show basic objective preferences that transcend across cultures. These features. save for matters of eye shape or the like (of course), include the qualities mentioned above in reference to feet. In fact, one such study showed that men (on the average) tend to favor the faces of women with smaller feet, a thing the men were of course not made privy to.
COUNTEREXAMPLES: I know these will arise. However, I have answers that undercut all of them if not everyone.
C1. The "I like or even seem to favor y-types of feet as opposed to what Wooden Leviathan proposes is the objective or universal x-type standard" counterexample.
To this, I say, one's liking or even appearing to favor y-type feet does not preclude him from still being attracted to x-types, with or without his acknowledgement. In fact, I posit that heat-map data or imagery via fMRI scan would show this to be the case on the whole for those exhibiting minimal degrees of arousal while those lacking arousal would be mere statistical outliers outside the bell curve.
All things equal. I postulate preferences that deviate from the objective or universal beauty standard are linked to our immediate or even ancestral environments. That is, while the latter is one kind of preference which could stem from a relative within a relatively recent familial lineage, an epigenetic tag flickered 'on', the former is merely a social adaptation whereby one conforms to what was 'available' to them in their immediate social environment during some formative period during their lifespan. Humans like many animals tend to favor variables that work in their favor where survival of some kind is paramount. For the podophile or foot fetishist, this means sexual fitness.
I agree with most everything you said excluding your counterargument. The human brain is complex and it was be audacious to say "no, you actually do like x-type feet you just don't realize it". I can't speak for everyone, but I for one feel no disposition to like anything other than what I like. My favor is big meaty feet, some of which have pronounced curves some don't. I tend to favor the one's that do not. That's like saying since man use to be scavengers deep down we like the smell of partially decomposing flesh. Until these studies are done feet-centric everything you are saying is an EDUCATED (I stress educated because their is some merit to what you are saying and obviously given the title you agree) guess. An unfounded guess nonetheless. Still a fantastic read and I do appreciate you taking the time to delve into this subject all the while including references.
Posted by Solomonsheir (Member # 51922) on :
Leviathan, do you have a picture of this universally desirable foot type?