Talk:Foot fetishism/Archive 1

message: 1. Response to "Article has degraded". Foot fetishism is a topic of a sexual nature, so any comments on how the article has "degraded" by being "excessively" sexual are out of place. Besides, what is so degrading about that? Why be purist, when listing different ways of how a foot fetish can be expressed are directly beneficial to the article by supplying information? No, we cannot all agree that the article needs a clean up in the way that is implied. If anything, article needs to be more specific. Although, on the other hand, some parts of the article are a little ambiguous (as per other posts)
2. Comment on the article text: "Still another theory is that a person who adores feet is submissive. However, this would be a small percentage, as most foot fetishists are male, and are therefore sexually dominant by nature."
Really, are "therefore sexually dominant by nature?". Then how do you explain the staggering amount of submissive males and a HUGE market for female dominants? Someone needs to check their sources before posting this! That needs to be changed; I can provide supporting evidence that the percentage of submissive males is quite large.
3. The picture is while of feet, is not exactly representative of "foot fetish", unlike the picture on the boot fetish topic. A new picture may be in order. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martyn427 (talk • contribs) .
:I've removed the picture because it is not related enough. It's a family friendly exception to the usual problem with sex related article's illustrations, but I think wikipedia has better pictures than that to illustrate this article. -- Ashmodai 04:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Comment 

message: I couldn't agree more - this article is an embarassment to Wikipedia.  It sounds like it was written by a kid for their MySpace page.
"...Do we really need to know the multiple ways to give a footjob?..."  Agreed.  This is as superfluous as it is silly.
:I remember reading this article Before there was talk of footjobs but it was done in a tasteful way, something like some guys like having sex with feet most partners allow this. Was that removed Becuase I read it again and couldn't find any reference to footjobs. If It was Removed it should be added agian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.254.192.81 (talk • contribs) .
And to assert that males are naturally dominant sexually is an affront. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.29.135.69 (talk • contribs) .
:It does not state males are naturally dominant, if I read it correctly. It states foot fetishism is male dominant, i.e. more prevalent with males. It also cites a source. -- Ashmodai 04:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Comment 

message: About this bit:
"One explanation, advanced by neurologist Prof. Daniel Griffiths, highlights the fact that the feet and the genitals occupy adjacent areas of the sensory cortex, possibly entailing some neural crosstalk between the two". 
It would be of the most important interest to make clear who this Prof. Daniel Griffiths is and where is this quotation taken from. The only professor Griffiths I could find over the net is not a neurologist but a recently passed away biologist in the Department of Biological Sciences of the University of Illinois. An unpublished dissertation of this guy is quoted in some webpages but I couldn't find any reference either to foot fetish or neurology.
Thanks.
User: --sorompio 13:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clear sources 

message: It would seem that a larger 'sex-oriented' wiki community that is less biased towards the specific article might be a good idea. The Wikipedia:WikiProject_ sexSexology_and_sexuality seems to be working on such issues as image appropriateness guidelines (Reference: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines). Wold it be worth aligning this page under that project? Lordandrei (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added to Sexuality and Psychology Wiki Projects Lordandrei (talk) 04:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to Sexuality WikiProject? 

message: Footnote link 22 appears to be broken. 66.191.19.68 (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote 22 broken. 

message: It appears that the majority of the text regarding treatment is covered in Sexual fetish.  Any thoughts on shortening the section and linking to the aforementioned page/section? Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 14:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: User:Rsl12 has deleted the entire section.  While I agree there is no need to repeat, verbatim, the fetish treatment section, I think a short sentence with an internal link to aforementioned article.  Thoughts about that before it is added? Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 13:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment section? 

message: Where it says "Video databases such as "Youtube" receive many thousands of queries a day involving the term "foot fetish".13" The 13 leads to some footfetish video on youtube and isn't a source at all to support this claim. I ask that someone find a source to back up this misleading statement or remove this line and the unrelated video link regardless.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.124.72 (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  If the statistic can be backed up with reliable source, it mightbe noteworthy.  Otherwise it should go.  Thanks for removing the unnecessary link. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 04:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example Cases - Unsupported youtube statement and misleading youtube link 

message: It gives you the straight dope on obscure things you never even thought about. Things you could never find in other general 'look-up' works. The only bad thing I can think of is that we need a little more details and illustrations I think. Great work! T.R. 87.59.78.140 (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles like this are what makes WikiPedia excellent 

message: http://www.feet.tv/ -- A gay foot fetish social networking website. Pchk (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful websites 

message: Madonna is seen sucking on a woman's toe in her Sex book as well as on the back cover of her Erotica album. Add her to the list? Israell (talk) 07:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems likely, but it would be nice to have a source in print. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 20:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  She certainly has a foot fetish, True Blue has a dedication to someone sayng, 'I kiss your stinky feet', she certainly enjoys dom/sub, therefore foot fetish comes into that, other examples but they don't come to mind.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.86.137 (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madonna 

message: First, in Arabic, Hindu, Asian and African cultures, the act of entering a place of worship, without shoes, is to show subservience, and a hint of sexual submission to god. Showing your feet to god, allows him to see  your body, in a naked, yielding way. In poor cultures, around the world, all poor people have for entertainment, is sex, so going barefoot is the way they all travel.
In every culture, though, a beautiful, barefoot girl, or woman, even by other females, is considered attractive. Feet remind people of sex. In America, going barefoot is primarily done by females.
 
It is a rite of passage of young girls in America to get tough, calloused feet, in order to “become  a woman.” It is a trait that separates the female from the male of the species. It is a way that a woman can show-off her ‘female power’ over society, its laws, and its taboos.
Males might notice aggression from other males when they go barefoot, because it could be considered cross-dressing, or feminine, simply because it’s done so often,  by so many females. When a male goes barefoot, it is because he has felt a woman’s feet, and decided he wants to know ‘ why’  women go barefoot, and why women go through so much pain, to what end,  and what that pain, or callouses accomplish. Fearing embarrassment, laughter and ridicule from females, when a male in America goes barefoot, it is usually in the dead of night, so no one can see him, because a barefoot man is an eyesore, with big,  hulking toes, not like the dainty, painted-toe-nailed, small feet of a female. 
A man can be embarrassed to be seen as having a foot fetish. Unlike the female, who takes pride in showing off her foot fetish, every day, even in flip flops, showing her bare feet to the world. Since the advent of paved roads, in the 1960's and 70's, women and girls have sought tough, calloused feet, to shock and amaze other girls, and boys who might feel the bottoms of their feet.
Girls are known to have ‘barefoot contests’ between each other, in Spring and Summer, growing up. Boys may play baseball, or swim in Summer, but girls go barefoot - all day, every day, just to get their feet tough.  The pedicure industry, and assorted pedicure products offered in grocery markets, are testaments  to this widespread female character trait - they don’t market these things to boys. 
	
You can tell the sex drive of a woman who has tough, calloused feet. You can tell how promiscuous she is, if her feet have solid, like-steel skin on the bottoms of her feet - you know that she is going to want to share her foot secret with as many people as she can. When a man feels a woman’s feet for the first time, and finds the skin there to be way tougher than anything he could imagine, it turns the man on, whether he admits it right away or not.
Going barefoot teaches young girls to be promiscuous,  how to lie, and how to keep a secret - tools that prove very handy, in the modern world of divorce court, and male/female relationships, in America. Females are enjoying and abusing power, like no other female in human history ever could before.  Learning how to give pleasure to the opposite sex, by giving people skin to look at, and to give themselves, in a pornographic way, prepubescently  entices girls to give up inhibitions, and to experience an  affectionate reward, from most anyone they meet, in that, girls make friends easier,  usually, when they are barefoot. 
Young girls are encouraged by their parents, and society to go barefoot in public. Women are rewarded foot kissing, or other kinds of foot attention, in America, for having tough, calloused feet. They are in every commercial (notice next time, all the soles poses or sole shots), every TV show, and every movie.
Female feet are very much a part of  American Culture, and a woman that shows her soles to people, can get an endorphin rush, and sexual stimulation from, ‘ what no one speaks about’, since most people don’t understand their own fascination with feet.  A lot of women have told their mates not to kiss their breasts, anymore, but to kiss their feet instead, since their breasts mostly hurt, or have no feeling, and their feet register in the close proximity of the  “pleasure zone” of the brain. Nerve endings from every part of the body are in the bottoms of the feet, and foot kissing, with conditioning, can bring great pleasure or orgasm.
Over time, and after repetition in sex, things associated with sex can bring climax, and a man can orgasm from kissing his woman’s feet, as well. Young girls, who are taught to go barefoot, as early as five, try to get their feet kissed by their sisters, brothers, or a boy they might play with. Nobody ever talks about feet, but everybody has a foot fetish.
 
Every American girl, who is attractive, or who knows she has attractive feet, has two hobbies: sex, and going barefoot, on a never-ending quest for tougher, more calloused feet. Although, most girls discover that, by age twelve, their pads on their feet and even their toes, are very hard, and, for the rest of their lives, that skin stays that way. They don’t even have to go barefoot anymore, to retain tough, calloused skin.
This is because females grow skin faster than males, due to the properties of estrogen. Look at a pregnant woman - her hair, skin and nails grow at an alarming rate. It is futile for a man to go barefoot - he would never be able to achieve, or maintain the tough, calloused skin, that a woman, during the same walking time, would achieve.
In this foot fetish culture, a man has to know, and be prepared,  that when a woman takes off her flip flop, and shows the bottom of her foot to him, she is sexually interested in him.  It’s just what most women do now, even though foot fetishism is different from person to person, and what one person likes to do, may be far different from what the next person likes to do; a woman's feet can define her. It can make or break a relationship, especially if it gets too weird, or is in bad taste.
Intelligent people tend to take it to a higher, more spiritual/sexual place, while not so intelligent people tend to leave it out, or do it wrong, or complain they don’t understand it. If the girl does not have tough, calloused feet - more than likely she doesn’t understand it, and will be relocated to the ‘foot-job culture’, where soft-soled women usually end up ‘pretending’ to understand what makes a man happy, and where men really don’t know how to feed their foot craving effectively. Foot kissing is the way a man thanks a woman for walking the streets barefoot, all her life - a way to say ‘thank you’ for the pain, pornography, and inhibition of going barefoot in public, and to these tough, calloused-footed girls,  foot kissing is usually the most important part of a  relationship.
Receiving oral pleasure from a girl, while looking at the bottoms of her feet, or while kissing her feet, is widely considered some of the best, most enjoyable sex a man and woman can have. There is something ancient and spiritual about it. Any sex can become foot fetish sex. 
More and more, you cannot have, or start a relationship with a girl, without some kind of foot attention paid to the girl, and right up front. Very psychotic games can be played with feet, and no other body part. They can be a sign of affection, an insult, or mean nothing at all, and only the “barer” of those feet, would  really know what they mean by them.
On a girl, they are like whiskers on a cat, and can be her most important asset. 
````NoNameAvailable —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoNameAvailable (talk • contribs) 06:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is an awful lot of crap!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.86.137 (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is a not a soap box nor a blog. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 01:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the Fascination: 

message: What sick person wrote that article. It is structured and written, as if foot fetishism was some disease that had to be threated (even with medicaments).
Seriously guys? WTF?
This article needs a major overhaul. By someone from the 21st century!
— 88.77.137.180 (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think the article needs improvement, [ create an account] and be bold.  Have your reliable sources in order though as your edits may be challenged with our proper sources. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 19:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, foot fetishism is not a disease, it actually is insulting to think so. Most young British gay men have a foot fetish.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.86.137 (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foot fetishism is NO disease! 

message: The study seems to me to fail to create a link. The two things seem to be disconnected and fully casual. And they would not work in other countries. For example, foot fetish is mainistream (trainer fetish as well) and very, very, very common amongst young gay men. It has been so for about 10 years.
Foot fetish is due to biological and psychological reasons. Biologically, feet are very sensitive, as they are the termination of the nervous system (hence reflexology), therefore, naturally erogenous. They also are really packed with ferormones, leven more than armpits, and more than genitalia, therefore, they arouse people. When you say feet are not a sexual organ, what you mean is reproductive, therefore you need to change that, sex is not just reproduction, or is there a mouth fetish, as people kiss and snog, breasts are not reproductive, therefore they are no more sexual than feet according to your own reasoning. Psychologically, they are linked with growing up and the whole sub-dom culture. When people grow up, as most like having their feet pampered, touched, licked etc for the very reasons above, they will find a young friend to play with them, who will develop a foot fetish (there are many other reasons, but this seems to be a very common pattern). It is clear that the one who has his/her feet licked etc takes on a dominant position, the other a submissive, so most foot festishists fall into the dom-sub scene. Pleas do something about this article!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.86.137 (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  STIs and foot fetish + this article needs major rehauling and improvement 

message: I believe that in China, even today, naked feet (of both sexes) are considered as improper and erotic as e.g. naked breasts. Does this belong here? Any sources?--Noe (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say this has relevance; perhaps under a section entitled taboos or something similar. As for citations... I suppose Chinese law is a start. Investigating it first would be best. 03:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that both of you referring to foot binding. Perhaps this artcle benefit from a small mention and a "see also" section.--Kevin586 (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds to me that foot binding is unto itself a different subject as opposed to the legislation against bared feet due to potential eroticism which (given citations) would be appropriate here. Lordandrei (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know if such legislation exists (it may well do), but I think it's rather obvious that the taboo is related to the former praxis of foot binding. I am far from expert on any of this, and I have no references; I just thought I'd call attention to this matter, and I hope someone who knows and who can find the sources will write a paragraph on it.--Noe (talk) 08:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  China 

message: This is an excellent topic that I wish there was far more material available on. I have been looking. (Note: I also moved this up a topic level) Lordandrei (talk) 07:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This #Causation## bit only mentions one person's view so where are the possible alternatives. I thought Freud and others connected it to infancy when the mother / nurse 's feet are obvious whereas the parts further up like hips and breasts would be out of range.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What Are The Causes Foot Fetishism?

message: "Neurologist Vilayanur S. Ramachandran proposed that foot fetishism is caused by the feet and the genitals occupying adjacent areas of the somatosensory cortex, possibly entailing some neural crosstalk between the two."
This sentence reads as if it informed about an actually considered scientific theory or even just a proposal that was made in good earnest. Ramachandran's proposal, however, was clearly meant tongue-in-cheek -- this has been something of a joke, and nothing else! Otherwise it wouldn't hold much water anyhow, because the region of the brain in question is only processing the sensory input (that amounts to the feelings one has) of (obviously) one's own feet. Yet the majority of foot fetishists isn't particularly attracted to their own feet, but to those of others. One should clarify on the nature of that (non)proposal. Zero Thrust (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless supported by the academic community at large, this has to be rejected here. Even if vaguely humorous, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. Propositions are commonplace in science, but proof is somewhat scarcer. As it stands, it should go, with extreme prejudice, and it has. Rodhullandemu 02:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Rod, the Ramachandran proposition doesn't seem like fringe or humorous at all.  And I disagree that propositions, based in evidence, have no place in wikipedia.  Consider the yawning article--while no-one knows for sure why we yawn, there have been a number of theories proposed.--RSLxii 16:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causation "theory" 

message: Right, the poor average guy with this fetish will feel better if they know that even famous people have it! Kerliboxxy (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've made your own point here, unless your point was to highlight the opposite. If notable people are listed here and show no shame in a particular preference or orientation, isn't that better for them? Or perhaps I've missed the point of your post, if there was one. Rodhullandemu 00:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Famous people

message: I am wondering if it is time to protect either the article or, more precisely, the 'Famous foot fetishists' section.  We are getting an inordinate amount of vandalism and joke edits in the latter section.  Some of the vandalism begins to get into WP:BLP issues.  Thoughts? Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 20:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to protect? 

message: I'm removing Ted Bundy from the list of foot fetishists. I read the source material and I don't think it is conclusive that he had a foot fetish at all. While he mentions an obsession with socks (among other types of clothes), his use of the word fetish seemed clearly figurative, referred to socks in particular and not feet, and it seems more like he has some kind of hoarding/stealing issue than anything else. I did not see any mention of erotic stimulation of any sort in this section of the book. I feel that not only is it inaccurate to include his name, but it almost seems calculated to make foot fetishists look bad by including a serial killer at the very top of the list. 209.134.115.5 (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Ted Bundy

message: I deleted the celebrity section of this article. I feel that it's none of our business, I hav it and no one in the world knows about it, becuase I'd be embaressed to talk about it  —Preceding unsigned comment added by The hacking master (talk • contribs) 05:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia doesn't work that way.  You must gain consensus before removing properly sourced sections, you don't get to just have your way without or before any discussion.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I don't believe there should be considered consensus here. A couple of editors are taking a POV with a bias that even well-sourced inclusions on this list are inappropriate. They have no reasonable basis for this except their "feeling" (note above wording "I feel") that this common sexual interest is embarrassing. I advocate the required criteria for the list should be only notability and reliable source. Please see my discussion lower in this section. Ryvr (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Well I wasn't initially particularly happy about it, but I see your point and don't really care. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any alternative suggestions? --Simon Speed (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

text: I have no particular problem with claims about long dead people like F Scott Fitzgerald though I'm not much impressed with the source given.  The thing about living people is that unprovable and (even mildly) embarrassing claims about them are LIBELOUS.  Even when the victim is a good sport and doesn't want to kick up a fuss we need to keep this an encyclopedia.  Please read what I've written above and read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons carefully. --Simon Speed (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, anything controversial about a living person must be referenced from a reliable source.  That is Wikipedia policy, not my personal prejudice, if you don't like it please argue for its amendment.  I understand my removal of all living persons was extreme.  Unfortunately it was also necessary.  The same unreferenced and badly referenced claims kept being replaced in the list.  If you check out the main Wikipedia articles on these people, not one refers to foot fetishism (a rather telling fact in itself).  Libel laws in some countries do not require proof of malice (one reason why BLP is so strong) and foot fetishism may be seen in different ways in different contexts: I do remember that one of the references provided was to claims made by a dumped ex girlfriend quoted on a gossip site (funny how the mainstream media didn't repeat them!!!!). --Simon Speed (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted celebrties sec 

message: A search on footjob redirects to this article, but there is no mention of the practice.  However the article about non-penetrative sex does contain a short description.  Thought I'd point it out. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to have been changed.  Thanks. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Good point.  The non-penetrative sex has an internal link back to this article and, as you mentioned, there is not a description of the practice(s). 66.191.19.68 (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footjob Redirect. 

message: The following entries lack any supporting references. It seems that due to the nature of inferring non-published sexuality, it is best to keep 'theoretical fetishists' off the main article page. Follow all the standard wikipedia practices for acceptable citations. Once a celebrity has a verifiable citation then they can be moved (with citation) to the main article page.
With luck this should reduce the vandalism on the main article page.
* Charles Pierre Baudelaire
* Casanova
* Keith Caputo
* Jamie Daniels http://jamiedaniels.com 
* Damon Dash
* Johann Wolfgang von Goethe 
* Thomas Hardy
* Terrence Howard  
* Marilyn Manson  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantrumbladum (talk • contribs) 08:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Quentin Tarantino reference seems pretty bogus to me: a Hollywood Investigator blog piece which says that there was a discussion in Village Voice (no link or specific citation), which was quoted in Everything Tarantino, but the link is to the main page of that web site, and I could not find anything about feet when I searched the site. If we cannot come up with a more solid reference, we should take Tarantino back out of our article, IMO. Peter Chastain (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

text: It seems someone really wanted to include several people. The source for Onegin, for instance, has two problems: (1) It is essentially a gossip piece and is clearly not a reliable source (many of the claims it makes are weak) and (2) It doesn't say anything about Onegin or Pushkin. I'm yanking all of the entries citing this source. I'll review the list as well. To those looking to beef up the list: Yes, you may find comfort in finding examples of your fetish throughout history to offset the general disdain of your inclination. That said, this is Wikipedia. We have rules. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged Celebrities with Foot Fetishes 

message: * If anyone could help fix the link on the article page so it's a wiki link not a hard link that'd be appreciated Lordandrei (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Quentin Tarantino reference seems pretty bogus to me: a Hollywood Investigator blog piece which says that there was a discussion in Village Voice (no link or specific citation), which was quoted in Everything Tarantino, but the link is to the main page of that web site, and I could not find anything about feet when I searched the site. If we cannot come up with a more solid reference, we should take Tarantino back out of our article, IMO. Peter Chastain (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

text: It seems someone really wanted to include several people. The source for Onegin, for instance, has two problems: (1) It is essentially a gossip piece and is clearly not a reliable source (many of the claims it makes are weak) and (2) It doesn't say anything about Onegin or Pushkin. I'm yanking all of the entries citing this source. I'll review the list as well. To those looking to beef up the list: Yes, you may find comfort in finding examples of your fetish throughout history to offset the general disdain of your inclination. That said, this is Wikipedia. We have rules. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: This photo shows someone in the background who appears underage.  It's not at all clear that it is a sexual image at all, but it shouldn't be illustrating a sexuality page.  I've nominated it for deletion on the Commons and am removing it from here. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Lickinsocks.jpg]] 

message: It says "It [foot fetish] is the most common form of sexual preference for otherwise non-sexual objects or body parts." Wouldn't the most common fetish of a non-sexual body part be mammophilia? Parthian Scribe 00:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If reliable source can be located, it would be an important correction.  Do you have any info in that regard?  I also wonder how much the given culture would influence the statistics. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 20:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While not having a source to cite, I would assume foot fetishism beat mammophilia because it is not a gender/age specific fetish which would make it more accessible to a wider group. →Dark Cootie (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy