Re: Why are we this way?

[Post Followup ] [ Legs and Heels Message Board ]

Posted by black licorice on March 21, 2001 at 01:45:00:

In Reply to: Re: Why are we this way? posted by Snowman on March 19, 2001 at 14:53:18:

: Fascinating theory. I'm not sure I buy into it 100%, but there is a ring of truth to what you are saying, particularly the "barometer" concept. I ahve a few questions though:

Thanks! I'll try to answer them in order.

: Q: If a woman you found attractive was always without shoes everytime you ever saw her, would it cease to be symbolic of vulnerability, or tenderness, or anything else for that matter?

If I'm around a woman who's barefoot most or all of the time, whether that makes her more or less vulnerable depends more on her attitude towards being in that state than the fact that she's barefoot. A former co-worker of mine had a tinge of a foot fetish and we would joke and flirt about it on occasion--she hated socks, and would always wear sandals. She would even use the phrase "the socks came off last night" to refer to whenever she'd had sex. I'm more into nylon than bare feet, but she did have very pretty feet, and she easily picked up on the fact that I noticed and appreciated them. She was very sexually promiscuous, but also very sweet, and at times during our conversations she would open up about her feelings and get sort of emotional. So even though she was almost constantly barefoot, I still saw her as vulnerable. But to more specifically answer your question, I think that being around a girl who's frequently or always barefoot lends itself more to finding out how the woman feels about her own vulnerability than standing on its own as a symbol of that quality. In all honesty, I find that more hesitant women can be more appealing to me than women who are totally aware that their feet are sexy and use them as sexual weapons. An unwillingness to remove her shoes can reflect a woman's self-consciousness about her appearance, which is a very humble and understandable thing to feel, and can be very endearing and easy to relate to. I'll admit that while it's not a turn-off for me if a woman consciously flaunts her feet and teases with them, there's a certain softness and sense of comfort for me in females who are a little leery about it but still open to slowly explore those areas.

: Q: I have also witnessed many women that have lost one or both shoes and seemed extremely icy, and acted completely invulnerable. Almost an equal number are completely nonchalant about it. There is no doubt in my mind that a woman without shoes is more approachable and open in most circumstances. In the rare circumstance of having only one shoe, it is even more so. How does that fit in?

I agree that there are many women who are very cold and distant when their shoes are off, and I always get very uncomfortable around women who I get those vibes from. There's a bit more guilt and self-consciousness involved in those experiences. I think I have a more strictly sexual response to the women who are uncomfortable with the idea of their feet being seen in a sexual context, and when I'm around a girl who seems pretty open with her feet, it's more of an emotional connection with a sexual undercurrent, which is what I'm really after, I think. My dream relationship is to meet a girl who I can be open about the foot thing with, but who I also love and respect as a person. So I think it has less to do with whether or not they have their shoes off, but how they react and behave once the have come off--again, sort of a barometer of what they're like personally. Back when I was younger--and I bit more naive about how people would react to my fetish--I used to just casually approach women and tell them that I thought they had nice shoes, and if they seemed responsive to that, I would then ask what brand they were, to get them to take them off to look. The responses I got were varied--a surprising number would be very accomodating, immediately slipping off their shoes to show me the brand. Then we would talk about them for a while and they would let me put the shoe back on their feet if I asked, and sometimes we would flirt for a little while afterwards. Other women were extremely harsh and icy and I could tell they were uncomfortable, even if they did reluctantly concur and take off their shoes. So I totally agree with you that lots of women can have their shoes off and still not be vulnerable, but again, I think it has more to do with their reaction to having them off then just the fact that they're off. And I see your point about the one-shoe thing--that was of course almost always the case when I got a woman to take one shoe off to let me look at it. Why it's stronger, I'm not sure--maybe the jarring quality of the contrast between one foot being "safe" and the other being exposed and vulnerable?

: Q: I do think there is something profound in what you've said though. To me, seeing a woman's feet, particularly in the context of casually observed shoeplay, is akin to a sort of shared private intimacy, but I think it may be just me projecting this feeling onto the situation. The women I see, unless they notice me watching, couldn't really be aware of the symbolism, or perceived intimacy I might feel. Does that matter?

I think it goes back to some of what I said above--if the intimate, "shared" aspect that you speak of is absent, then--at least for me--it becomes a bit more sexualized and loses some of the symbolic value. Like in the way that some of the women I approached removed their shoes for me but obviously weren't into it all, they only did it to be civil, I suppose. It wasn't a shared experience in the least. the "sensory" stimuli were all still there--the scent wafting from her shoe and her nyloned feet, the sight of her bare feet encased in nylon, and even the sensation of touch if the woman allowed me to place the shoe back on her foot--but if the "sixth sense" (for lack of a better term) of an emotional or personal connection was absent, then all I ended up with was guilt and self-consciousness over the intensity of my immediate sensory reactions. I think it's obvious that most foot fetishists have this "shared" experience as their ultimate goal or best-case scenario, but the area where it gets complicated is in trying to marry the emotional with the physical. For example: most women that I've been around are pretty open with their feet provided they don't get any weird vibes from the men they're with. It seems that most women have no problem with getting a vigorous foot massage from a man as long as he doesn't act like he's loving it or enjoying it or getting anything out of it. It seems that a lot of women--not all, but quite a few--would actually prefer to get a foot massage from a man who is unwilling or even hesitant to do so (or at least appears to be), like he's only doing it as a favor and views it as an unpleasant burden, something to do and get over with, a task to accomplish--then get a foot massage from a man who's obviously swooningly mesmerized by the delicate beauty of her feet. I think this is the point where foot fetishism gets super-complicated--if we want the physical satisfaction, we have to carry on an eternal masquerade of pretending like we don't even notice feet--look at all the posts on this board from people who haven't confessed their proclivities to long-time significant others--but if we want the emotional comfort of being open and honest about our interest, we risk losing access to actually being able to touch or even view female feet.

: Q: I have been around some championship shoeplayers, and I suspect they flip their loafers even when they are alone, and can't be observed by anyone.
: How does that fit into your theory?

I'll have to think about that some...I very much agree that a great deal of shoeplay is probably done in private, but if a woman is totally alone--like at home--then chances are she's taken her shoes off altogether instead of dangling or dipping them. And even when the really good shoeplayers are dangling in public where people can see, a lot of them probably aren't even aware that anyone's watching--and even if they are and are purposefully putting on a show, then it's doubtful that they'd have reason to continue when they're alone without an audience. But I do see your point, and will have to give that some thought.

: Q: Also, having been to many strip clubs over the years, I have found that not all, but many women who comfortably dance while naked are very shy about taking off their shoes. And that a certain amount of person relationship is often required to get her shoes off, regardless of ready cash. Do you have any theory on that?

This really piqued my interest. I think that most women see sex as a way of exerting power over men, to control them, and to prevent themselves from feeling vulnerable and victimized. Sex is the only way they can exert a degree of authority over them, and they can do it because they have more self-control over their sexuality then men do (given as how we as a species are notorious for going to silly putty whenever we're aroused--as the old joke goes, all the blood rushes out of our brains and into our sexual organs.) Any time that sense of power is threatened--especially if a woman is in a situation where she expects to maintain it (like a strip club) it's perceived as a threat, albeit one that probably also has some emotional appeal for her. Almost all of the females I've met in my life are somewhat wistful about losing their innocence, and romanticize their childhood sensitivity, but still find it scary to revisit and embrace those feelings. What you do with the strippers--trying to get them to take off their shoes and reveal their feet--is suggestive of that. Like I said, I was really interested in your story, because it underscores the whole difference between "feet and leg men" and "tits and ass men." A common cliche of men is that their ultimate sexual goal is to take a virgin and turn her into a whore. For a great number of men, this is true--witness the familiar high school ritual of horny upperclassmen making sexual designs on the new "crop" of ripe freshman girls. But for foot fetishists, our goals are almost the exact opposite: what you're trying to do with these strippers is to take a whore and turn her into a virgin. This is something that I think women react with a lot of ambivalence to. All women ultimately want love and affection and nurturing, and to be in touch with their femininity and vulnerability, but they also want to maintain a certain amount of control, and obviously the whole notion of vulnerability is to give up control. Hence their shyness and apprehension in letting you do something that threatens their emotional security, and their need to gain a degree of personal trust with you before they can fully embrace doing something that represents vulnerability even if they find it more than a little intriguing and stimulating.

: Thanks for the post. It really got me thinking. If you have the time or inclination, I would really like to know what you think about any of these questions. I hope to here more from you.

:
: Snowman

Thanks again. This reply turned out to be a little longer than I'd expected...sorry about that! Hope I answered your questions in their somewhere! I'd certainly enjoy hearing your reaction to what I've written. And Dean, thanks very much for providing this forum. I've had these kinds of thoughts and ideas floating around in my head for as long as I can remember, and it's great to have a place to share them.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: : Fascinating theory. I'm not sure I buy into it 100%, but there is a ring of truth to what you are saying, particularly the "barometer" concept. I ahve a few questions though: : Thanks! I'll try to answer them in order. : : Q: If a woman you found attractive was always without shoes everytime you ever saw her, would it cease to be symbolic of vulnerability, or tenderness, or anything else for that matter? : If I'm around a woman who's barefoot most or all of the time, whether that makes her more or less vulnerable depends more on her attitude towards being in that state than the fact that she's barefoot. A former co-worker of mine had a tinge of a foot fetish and we would joke and flirt about it on occasion--she hated socks, and would always wear sandals. She would even use the phrase "the socks came off last night" to refer to whenever she'd had sex. I'm more into nylon than bare feet, but she did have very pretty feet, and she easily picked up on the fact that I noticed and appreciated them. She was very sexually promiscuous, but also very sweet, and at times during our conversations she would open up about her feelings and get sort of emotional. So even though she was almost constantly barefoot, I still saw her as vulnerable. But to more specifically answer your question, I think that being around a girl who's frequently or always barefoot lends itself more to finding out how the woman feels about her own vulnerability than standing on its own as a symbol of that quality. In all honesty, I find that more hesitant women can be more appealing to me than women who are totally aware that their feet are sexy and use them as sexual weapons. An unwillingness to remove her shoes can reflect a woman's self-consciousness about her appearance, which is a very humble and understandable thing to feel, and can be very endearing and easy to relate to. I'll admit that while it's not a turn-off for me if a woman consciously flaunts her feet and teases with them, there's a certain softness and sense of comfort for me in females who are a little leery about it but still open to slowly explore those areas. : : Q: I have also witnessed many women that have lost one or both shoes and seemed extremely icy, and acted completely invulnerable. Almost an equal number are completely nonchalant about it. There is no doubt in my mind that a woman without shoes is more approachable and open in most circumstances. In the rare circumstance of having only one shoe, it is even more so. How does that fit in? : I agree that there are many women who are very cold and distant when their shoes are off, and I always get very uncomfortable around women who I get those vibes from. There's a bit more guilt and self-consciousness involved in those experiences. I think I have a more strictly sexual response to the women who are uncomfortable with the idea of their feet being seen in a sexual context, and when I'm around a girl who seems pretty open with her feet, it's more of an emotional connection with a sexual undercurrent, which is what I'm really after, I think. My dream relationship is to meet a girl who I can be open about the foot thing with, but who I also love and respect as a person. So I think it has less to do with whether or not they have their shoes off, but how they react and behave once the have come off--again, sort of a barometer of what they're like personally. Back when I was younger--and I bit more naive about how people would react to my fetish--I used to just casually approach women and tell them that I thought they had nice shoes, and if they seemed responsive to that, I would then ask what brand they were, to get them to take them off to look. The responses I got were varied--a surprising number would be very accomodating, immediately slipping off their shoes to show me the brand. Then we would talk about them for a while and they would let me put the shoe back on their feet if I asked, and sometimes we would flirt for a little while afterwards. Other women were extremely harsh and icy and I could tell they were uncomfortable, even if they did reluctantly concur and take off their shoes. So I totally agree with you that lots of women can have their shoes off and still not be vulnerable, but again, I think it has more to do with their reaction to having them off then just the fact that they're off. And I see your point about the one-shoe thing--that was of course almost always the case when I got a woman to take one shoe off to let me look at it. Why it's stronger, I'm not sure--maybe the jarring quality of the contrast between one foot being "safe" and the other being exposed and vulnerable? : : : Q: I do think there is something profound in what you've said though. To me, seeing a woman's feet, particularly in the context of casually observed shoeplay, is akin to a sort of shared private intimacy, but I think it may be just me projecting this feeling onto the situation. The women I see, unless they notice me watching, couldn't really be aware of the symbolism, or perceived intimacy I might feel. Does that matter? : I think it goes back to some of what I said above--if the intimate, "shared" aspect that you speak of is absent, then--at least for me--it becomes a bit more sexualized and loses some of the symbolic value. Like in the way that some of the women I approached removed their shoes for me but obviously weren't into it all, they only did it to be civil, I suppose. It wasn't a shared experience in the least. the "sensory" stimuli were all still there--the scent wafting from her shoe and her nyloned feet, the sight of her bare feet encased in nylon, and even the sensation of touch if the woman allowed me to place the shoe back on her foot--but if the "sixth sense" (for lack of a better term) of an emotional or personal connection was absent, then all I ended up with was guilt and self-consciousness over the intensity of my immediate sensory reactions. I think it's obvious that most foot fetishists have this "shared" experience as their ultimate goal or best-case scenario, but the area where it gets complicated is in trying to marry the emotional with the physical. For example: most women that I've been around are pretty open with their feet provided they don't get any weird vibes from the men they're with. It seems that most women have no problem with getting a vigorous foot massage from a man as long as he doesn't act like he's loving it or enjoying it or getting anything out of it. It seems that a lot of women--not all, but quite a few--would actually prefer to get a foot massage from a man who is unwilling or even hesitant to do so (or at least appears to be), like he's only doing it as a favor and views it as an unpleasant burden, something to do and get over with, a task to accomplish--then get a foot massage from a man who's obviously swooningly mesmerized by the delicate beauty of her feet. I think this is the point where foot fetishism gets super-complicated--if we want the physical satisfaction, we have to carry on an eternal masquerade of pretending like we don't even notice feet--look at all the posts on this board from people who haven't confessed their proclivities to long-time significant others--but if we want the emotional comfort of being open and honest about our interest, we risk losing access to actually being able to touch or even view female feet. : : Q: I have been around some championship shoeplayers, and I suspect they flip their loafers even when they are alone, and can't be observed by anyone. : : How does that fit into your theory? : I'll have to think about that some...I very much agree that a great deal of shoeplay is probably done in private, but if a woman is totally alone--like at home--then chances are she's taken her shoes off altogether instead of dangling or dipping them. And even when the really good shoeplayers are dangling in public where people can see, a lot of them probably aren't even aware that anyone's watching--and even if they are and are purposefully putting on a show, then it's doubtful that they'd have reason to continue when they're alone without an audience. But I do see your point, and will have to give that some thought. : : Q: Also, having been to many strip clubs over the years, I have found that not all, but many women who comfortably dance while naked are very shy about taking off their shoes. And that a certain amount of person relationship is often required to get her shoes off, regardless of ready cash. Do you have any theory on that? : This really piqued my interest. I think that most women see sex as a way of exerting power over men, to control them, and to prevent themselves from feeling vulnerable and victimized. Sex is the only way they can exert a degree of authority over them, and they can do it because they have more self-control over their sexuality then men do (given as how we as a species are notorious for going to silly putty whenever we're aroused--as the old joke goes, all the blood rushes out of our brains and into our sexual organs.) Any time that sense of power is threatened--especially if a woman is in a situation where she expects to maintain it (like a strip club) it's perceived as a threat, albeit one that probably also has some emotional appeal for her. Almost all of the females I've met in my life are somewhat wistful about losing their innocence, and romanticize their childhood sensitivity, but still find it scary to revisit and embrace those feelings. What you do with the strippers--trying to get them to take off their shoes and reveal their feet--is suggestive of that. Like I said, I was really interested in your story, because it underscores the whole difference between "feet and leg men" and "tits and ass men." A common cliche of men is that their ultimate sexual goal is to take a virgin and turn her into a whore. For a great number of men, this is true--witness the familiar high school ritual of horny upperclassmen making sexual designs on the new "crop" of ripe freshman girls. But for foot fetishists, our goals are almost the exact opposite: what you're trying to do with these strippers is to take a whore and turn her into a virgin. This is something that I think women react with a lot of ambivalence to. All women ultimately want love and affection and nurturing, and to be in touch with their femininity and vulnerability, but they also want to maintain a certain amount of control, and obviously the whole notion of vulnerability is to give up control. Hence their shyness and apprehension in letting you do something that threatens their emotional security, and their need to gain a degree of personal trust with you before they can fully embrace doing something that represents vulnerability even if they find it more than a little intriguing and stimulating. : : Thanks for the post. It really got me thinking. If you have the time or inclination, I would really like to know what you think about any of these questions. I hope to here more from you. : : : : Snowman : Thanks again. This reply turned out to be a little longer than I'd expected...sorry about that! Hope I answered your questions in their somewhere! I'd certainly enjoy hearing your reaction to what I've written. And Dean, thanks very much for providing this forum. I've had these kinds of thoughts and ideas floating around in my head for as long as I can remember, and it's great to have a place to share them. :

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Legs and Heels Message Board ]