I suspect that full-blown fetishes are like full-blown phobias: they are a breakdown of the way the brain ought to work. Something seriously goes wrong, and it can be legitimately called “mental illness.”
(A fetish, like a phobia, is a reasonably high-functioning mental illness. Both pretty rarely intrude on the patient’s ability to live a normal life. A spider walks by, I scream. A pretty young thing walks by barefoot, I get aroused. It doesn’t go beyond that, really.)
There is a lesser form of accentuation, called “partialism.” Someone who is a “foot partialist” is more interested in feet than the average person is, but not to the degree of a full-blown fetish. When a man identifies as a “leg-man” or a “breast-man” that’s a low-level variety of partialism.
I’m not entirely sure. It came up on google. Nails actually aren’t bad; I’ve seen much much worse. Those really just need a trim. But chances are good that this person can’t reach their feet to trim them; I’d get a referral for them to a podiatrist.
The swelling and bumps are most likely lymphedema. The dark patches are probably a fungal infection. (But I’m not really good at medical diagnosis, so I could be way off.)
What confuses me is if feet are so unattractive, why bother painting toenails? Isn’t that to draw attention towards them? Same goes with foot tattoos, which I really find weird. A girl I know has favorite quotes tattooed on her feet but hates people looking at them. (???)
Hmm, I guess I’m really weird, then. I like feet. Not in a sexual way, they just seem like an interesting body part that is often pleasant to look at. (Not the troll foot. That looks unhealthy and unpleasant to me.) You can see how the parts are connected, and you can see how it works. I like hands and faces more than feet, but feet might be third on my list.
That’s the psychological definition, but, in real life, most “foot fetishists” are partialists. If you can get it off without thinking about or using feet, then you don’t technically have a fetish.
And a foot fetishist woudln’t care who they were attached to or if they were attached at all.
BigT: You may be right, but I’m gonna disagree, very mildly. I went through this, earlier, in a different thread, about spiders and phobias. The other guy argued that it isn’t really a phobia until it is so overwhelmingly intrusive that it makes having an ordinary life impossible. I think this definition is too strong, and limits the usefulness of the concept. There might actually be a few people so afraid of spiders that they can’t get out of bed, or go outdoors, or pick up a phone (“There might be a spider underneath it!”) but this is so rare that it doesn’t really need to be included, and the word “phobia” can be generalized to people who exhibit typical phobic reactions – sudden panic, strong avoidance, loss of control of emotions when seeing even printed images, etc. My correspondent said that these do not define a “phobia,” and I say if they don’t, the word is being defined too strictly and needs changing.
The same, then, for this definition of fetish: it is so extremely restrictive as to be valueless, because there might be seven or eight real fetish-sufferers in the U.S. under it.
In my (non-professional) opinion, if the emphasis is extremely high, if the focus is very narrow, if all sex acts gravitate to the feet – not that they must, simply that they most often do – i.e., if the guy is perfectly able to get off from manual or oral or genital sex, but really, really prefers to mess around with feet – that’s enough for us to call it a fetish.
It’s like making up a word for someone who needs to have manual contact with someone’s feet in order to remain alive: he can’t even breathe without touching someone else’s toes. Why make up a word for it, if there aren’t any such people?
I don’t think either are particularly gross, though they can be.
One thing I thought I’d mention: in my experience, 98% of the hairs I find in my food at restaurants are my own, or from someone in my family that I brought with me. Check them carefully before you go blaming the cook. Also, like someone said, we often think our own hairs or those of people we love aren’t that gross, it’s the strange cook or waiter we don’t know whose hairs squick us out. So it might ease your mind a bit to verify whether that hair in your food is or is not yours.
My mom started eating a cookie at a potluck and thought the texture didn’t seem right. Yep, a Band-Aid.
Re the OP, I assumed the rules about shoes in a restaurant have to do with reducing chances of you hurting your feet? And you have to wear a shirt too, so nipples and belly buttons are also gross.
I don’t think that is the case, because it’s very easy to hurt your feet in sandals, and it’s even easier to hurt an ankle wearing the wrong shoes. That’s a justification I’ve often heard, and I’ll buy “fear of liability,” but I’m not buying “a reason based on unimpeachably sound logic.”
Animal hair I don’t really mind. Jeez, I’ve probably not had a single meal cooked at home without at least one cat hair in it in 20+ years. It’s just the way it is. I am super careful if I’m bringing any baked goods in to the office. One of my worst fears is a co-worker finding a hair and then I’m shunned and no one will eat my goodies anymore. Human hair for some reason is slightly grosser - maybe because of product and sweat - but I wouldn’t send back a dish over it.
Feet can be extremely gross and are more likely to be so as compared to other body parts, but not necessarily. I think any aversion I have is because my own feet are ugly. Like cavemen’s. In fact I had an ex boyfriend who called me “Barney” (after Rubble). I definitely cannot understand being actually attracted to them, though. I remember when I was about 11 or 12 and I went camping at the beach with a girlfriend’s family and some family friends of theirs, including their 17 year old son. All the kids were sitting around on the beach and, apropos of nothing this guy picks up my foot and starts caressing and rubbing it. He wasn’t doing it suggestively or even looking at it or me, just rubbing away while we were all hanging out. It seemed . . odd, but boy howdy did it feel good. It didn’t occur to me until,oh about 20 years later, that I’d been had if you know what I mean. Still felt damn good though.
They were wrong. Those are phobic reactions that you describe. That said, what is commonly called arachnophobia often doesn’t have those or any other characteristics of a true phobia.
Well, maybe not “loss of control of emotions.” That could go either way, depending on what that term means. Someone can scream when they see spiders without being phobic.
I don’t know why you think even that restricted version is this small. As someone with a “foot fetish” (really only having a foot sexual cue, along with others like breasts) myself, I’ve encountered a few such people, and I assume there must be more.
That said, I got the words fetish and paraphilia mixed up. A fetish is the lesser version. A paraphilia is the overwhelming version.
Aha. I would agree your definition (except it’s paraphilia, not fetish, as I said above), but, in my mind, they fit under my previous definition. I didn’t mean you actually had to use feet in having sex, just that it’s something you think about.
Also, the partialism stuff you mentioned before is out of date. The concept has been combined back with fetishes. Previously, partialism meant “body part fetish,” basically. But they are so similar that the DSM-V now treats them as the same, like the DSM-II did.
I think it comes from the renewed focus on the separation between normal variation and pathological cases. I think it came from the idea that partialism was “more normal,” but now that distinction is irrelevant, since either can be normal or abnormal.
