The arbitrariness of Trilby's feet as a revered tells us most about fetishization itself. It resembles the way we attach sexual value to breasts. They themselves play no instrumental role in the act of sex except as the arousing icon they've become through fetishization. Furthermore, Du Maurier's descriptions of Trilby's feet as innocent, young, pink and white sounds like a line straight out of Hustler Magazine, or perhaps more accurately out of Hustler's junior partner, Barely Legal, in reference to any of the three most prominently known erogenous zones possessed by women. The word innocent, in reference to Trilby's feet, articulates the way in which we attach undue value to a body part.
Feet are never innocent.
One could also argue that they are never guilty either, because no ground exists for either statement. From a strictly stylistic point of view, however, I would say that feet are more guilty than they are innocent. For that matter, so are les derrieres, but they too get away with a pretty good rap in our society. As the twentieth century has progressed, the skirt lines of women rose to accommodate the growing fascination with legs, which finally peaked at the end of the '60s. In the late '80s, dress backs dropped to show the lower back.