Talk:Shoe fetishism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Thoughts on the opinion that it is not a fetish
I read the thoughts below that shoe fetishism is almost mainstream in culture, and especially that "most men" don't notice shoes, dangling, et al. My experience with it has been that the subject of attention decides what is or is not a fetish. For example, as a man and a lover of shoeplay as an erotic thing, I do enjoy shoes, but should I compliment a woman on her shoes, the likelihood is very high she'll look at me like I'm a creep, or at the very least she'll think I'm gay (which defeats the purpose of communicating attraction).
As early as five years ago I remember hearing many women say they hated their feet. Things seem to have changed a little with the deluge of flip-flops at least in the United States, but it seems to be more for comfort/convenience than for love of their feet. What I'm trying to say is, until more women (the object of this "fetish") don't look at men like creeps when they compliment their shoes/legs/etc, it will be considered a fetish.
It may also be good to note in here that there seems to be a divide between dangling and foot fetishists. My experience has been that there are attractive feet/legs and there are unattractive feet/legs, and the latter does not arouse me. However, when I browse foot fetish sites on the Internet, it seems to me that this deliniation does not apply and any old thing with five toes will do. To me that takes it out of the realm of fetish and into the realm of finding beauty in something that the mainstream does not. In this case I believe "fetish" is used as a derogatory term by women who do not feel their legs or feet are attractive. It's been my experience that many women do this.
Is there any way to include such thoughts/theories in this article? I understand it's just my point of view but I believe it's the necessary counter to the argument that men don't care about these things. They DO, but there's no way to broach the subject. I for one wish I had it as easy as the jock douchebags at every bar in the country who tie on a few, spit out lines like "nice tits" and get to go home with the girl. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Matzoball1982 01:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's neutral to say that Shoe fetishism in its milder forms merges into the mainstream culture; the vast range of women's shoes available in mainstream shoe shops, most of which are not designed for comfort, demonstrates that low-level shoe fetishism pervades mainstream Western culture, almost without being noticed.
This has the feel of an opinion to me. It doesn't really reflect my everyday experience, either. While I'm not claiming me and mine as a representative sample, doesn't this view deserve some sort of attribution? Meelar, 00:12, Dec 16, (UTC)
- Claim: "most of which are not designed for comfort"
- Read this: http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/092502/hea_20020925020.shtml
- Shoe shops are full of high-heeled shoes. Shops sell them becuase people want to buy. Given that high heels are bad for you, why buy them? Because they look great. Why do they look great? Because "low-level shoe fetishism pervades mainstream Western culture, almost without being noticed". -- Karada 00:23, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I guess my problem with the statement would be that, for the most part, shoes and shoe marketing are directed at women. Most men I know do not appreciate, or even notice, womens' shoes; women, on the other hand, notice them often. Most of the women I've talked to will deny wearing shoes in order to look good for men; rather, they talk about looking good to other women, or feeling "more stylish", or something of this nature. If it is primarily women that are involved, then it's not a true fetish, which must be sexual in nature (see sexual fetishism). If shoes are primarily targeted to and of interest to women, not men, than any fetishistic aspect of shoe marketing is weakened. Meelar, 00:32, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)
I agree with Meelar. By definition a shoe fetish would involve being _ABNORMALLY_ aroused by the inanimate object - namely the shoe. Arguably high-street shoes are fashion items in the sense that they might make a woman feel sexy to the opposite sex. Even if the opposite sex percieve her as sexy this does not mean they have a fetish for shoes.
- Who says that the men are consciously noticing the shoes? Consider, please the phenomenon of "shoe dangling", a notorious come-on, practiced unconsciously by the unknowing, and consciously by the knowing. How can it ever work, unless men are paying constant covert attention to women's feet, by glancing at her feet every so often? Now consider that a nationwide network exists to sell "foot attention getters" to women. -- Karada 00:42, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Your missing the point. Just because earrings attract attention to the ears does not mean those who are attracted necessarily have a fetish. a fetish for an object is an abnormal or irrational desire for that object...
Obviously, it's possible for reasonable people to disagree on the topic...why don't we start discussing how we could modify the text, rather than pointlessly arguing about shoe fetishism? The usual "Some say that shoe fetishism pervades..." construction might not really work here. Any suggestions? Meelar, 01:05, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)
i say get rid of it. there is no such thing as a low level fetish. fetisheses are extreme by nature... the offending text also appears here Sexual_fetishism aside from this to say western culture would be misleading as teenage Japanese females are known for wearing high platforms (which I at least would consider as bordering on fetish wear)... (i was previsouly the anon editor)
well i edited out what i thought was causing the POV.
- The shoe designer Andre Perugia is quoted as saying: "Almost every woman is not only conscious of her feet, but sex conscious about them." -- Karada 12:58, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Karada I will say this one last time, the definition of fetish implies and ABNORMAL or IRRATIONAL FIXATION with, in this case, an inanimate object. If every woman is concious of her feet it is not a fetish on the grounds of NORMALITY alone. Furthermore i still believe that even being sex conscious of something doesn't constitute a fetish - we are all sex conscious of our appearance in general in an attempt to increase our attractiveness to the opposite sex. As a further point Andre Perugia is firstly not a psycologist and secondly did not mention anything about fetishes -- Jy 13:07, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
--
I also think this should come under footwear fetish as it can include sandals, boots, stilettos etc... -- Jy 14:43, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
OK, I have added the line "Although shoes carry sexual connotations in mainstream culture, this is not generally considered to be shoe fetishism." -- Karada 16:57, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I agree with how you've reworded it and have removed the POV boilerplate.... discussion closed? -- jy
Thanks. I've found a cite for my "low level fetishism" assertion, though:
Fetishism has been described as a continuum of behaviour which varies in intensity from partial to; to completely obsessed by. Steele (1996) described four stages. Level 1: Partialism (Stekel,1964) A mild preference for certain kinds of sexual partners, sexual stimuli or sexual activity. Not a true fetish but instead a liking towards. Level 2: Low intensity fetishism A strong preference exists to certain kinds of sexual partners, sexual stimuli or sexual activity. Normal sexual relationships continue but may incorporate the object of attraction in foreplay. Level 3: Moderate intensity fetishism Specific stimuli are necessary for sexual arousal and sexual performance. Level 4: High level fetishism (Gebhartt, 1994) Specific stimuli take the place of the sexual partner.
cited from http://www.podiatry.curtin.edu.au/sexy.html#fetish see references in text.
-- Karada 17:10, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
the cited works are intersting. If you read Partialism then you will see this is not classed as a fetish per se. the work itself states that this is at an even lower level than a 'low level fetish'.According to the work you referenced to qualify as an actual fetish (albeit a low level one) one _may_ incorporate the object in foreplay. thus it would be misleading to say fetishism has incorporated into mainstream culture... Jy
Im not saying you or the work is wrong - i simply think it is misleading and it draws away from the accepted definition of a fetish. Jy
An interesting discussion. I would point out that many women will refer to themsleves having a shoe fetish, as a way of explaining their liking to purchase shoes. This is of course rarely sexual, nor truly a fetish but does show that there is a fascination with footwear that pervades society. You may also note that advertisers use a lot of foot/shoe imagery these days, because they know there is a lot of sexual interest in this area among men and some women. It would therefore seem appropriate to talk about a low level fetishism that has pervaded society, though perhaps we need to coin the phrase semi-fetish to differentiate it from the full sexual obsession. pafetik
Also consider these data points:
- mainstream pornography often depicts women naked except for their high-heeled shoes.
- Strippers typically wear high-heeled shoes, which stay on when the rest of the clothes come off.
- A wide range of specialised pornographic magazines aimed at men with titles such as Leg Sex, which concentrate on women's legs, feet and shoes are sold at newsstands and adult stores.
- Google has 428,000 hits for the exact phrase "sexy shoes". A quick glance at the first couple of pages of hits shows that most of these are for shoe retailers aiming at female purchasers, rather than pornographic sites aimed at men.
-- Karada 14:49, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] kind of good
kind of good article, but certainly needs sources.
[edit] Removing stuff
I am moving the following here, as I think it is original reasearch:
Shoe dangling occurs when a lady sits down, crosses one leg over the other, slips her heel from her shoe and lets the shoe dangle from her toes. Often she will swing her foot so that the shoe also swings. Many men find the sight of this to be erotic and sexually arousing. Some females dangle their shoes to be flirty.
- I'm putting (most) of it back: see just about any of the 13,500 Google hits for the exact phrase "shoe dangling" for corroboration. -- Karada 16:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] For Some, Not Shoe Related
For some people, the shoes in the act of shoe dangling and most sorts of shoeplay are not in the least the subject on which the fetishist is fixated. For foot fetishists, the arousal comes from seeing the heels and the arches moving unabashadly in a voyueristic situation and the chance of seeing more of the foot as shoeplay intensifies. The possibility that the shoe might fall off the toe and expose the entire foot may give a climactic effect in the viewing of shoeplay and more specifically, shoe dangling.
[edit] Shoe Fetish in bible
I could find nothing in support of one obscure line in the Songs of Solomon being a reference to shoe fetishism. If anyone can find a reputable source for this feel free to put it back in the article. Frithjh 04:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Socks
Is sock fetish also shoe fetishism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Energman (talk • contribs) 21:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] merge to List of fetishes?
this is a somewhat minor article, and probably doesn't require it's own article--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 20:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm no expert, but I think this fetish is fairly common (as fetishes go). If there is an article on foot/leg/related fetishes that might be a better merge target, but I think it would be even better to develop this article. / edgarde 20:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. This is neither a minor article nor a minor fetish. Check this out. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2303022.ece "Researchers from the University of Bologna found that, among sexual preferences for body parts, feet and toes were the most popular, with 47 per cent of those sampled preferring them." --Darksasami 20:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
