What's the line of reasonable foot fetish accommodation?

Kiss feet, massage feet, those seem like automatic. I might even do that I'd rate myself in the 25th percentile of foot appreciation. They ain't kitten paws.

Footjobs? Cuming on someone's feet? Stick ones toes in a hole one typically does not stick a toe in?

Was gaiety considered a kink back in December 2009? It's so long ago, my aging brain cannot remember.

Women go for pedicures in huge droves. If a woman likes the attention of pedicures, and also likes getting her parter off (with the concomitant moaning and jizzing), it seems like a win/win. If SEC's great woman doesn't like pedicures, then fair play. He should find one that does!

I have to say that I only marginally agree with Dan here.

I've never been in a relationship with someone with a kink for feet afaik, but I've been shamed in the past by an ex about my feet's shape and look (he was an asshole who was very open about finding them utterly repulsive, even though I think they look like regular feet), so even now, almost 10 years later, I'm still insecure about them and I think I'd have a hard time indulging this kind of fetish. I think I'd be more open to trying basically anything else...

merc1994 @3: That really sucks. Glad to hear he's an ex.

I would guess that there are two objections that people have to receiving foot worship. First, the sensation of having one’s toes licked and sucked on. I suspect that some people find a tongue between their toes or a toe in their partner’s mouth unpleasant. Second, I think that some people are uncomfortable with the D/s implications of receiving foot worship. That can be especially true for vanilla women with male partners.

For the first category of complaints, I suppose there needs to be a reasonable accommodation. With respect to the second, I think may require a bit of mental compartmentalization.

@1 Sportlandia: I have the same question. Some foot fetishists want to caress, massage, kiss, and lovingly lavish affection on feet and - this is an important addition - on the person who comes with those feet. If the foot-haver isn't ticklish and doesn't find the sensations unpleasant, this type seems easy enough to indulge.

Other fetishists want those feet to do all sorts of work, like wear uncomfortable shoes, be in charge (or "in charge", because they're supposed to magically do exactly what the fetishist wants), skillfully accomplish footjobs, stick themselves in various holes, maintain specific grooming rituals (this covers both manicured in a particular way and the stinky-shoe approach of Dan's runner friend), cause physical pain, etc., and they have zero interest in the person's subjective experience.

These two overall ideas are very different.

I'd be thrilled for someone to worship my feet with touch. I'd have to look deep within to see if I was willing to, oh, let's say get my feet all stinky before shoving them in someone's mouth -- that sweaty smelly angle might be too much of a turnoff and shame-inducing in me to do it.

I'll side with Dan on this one.

I'm not into feet at all. To me, they're merely smelly appendages that we stand on. Zero interest. But if I had a partner that was into feet, and wanted to lick or lavish or cum on my feet, I'd have no problem with that. I don't get it, but hey, why not? Go for it if it makes you happy. It would take no effort whatsoever for me to accommodate them, even if it doesn't turn me on in the least.

Others have pointed out some possible exceptions with extreme cases. But I'd have to say that generally a foot fetish seems pretty benign and easy to accommodate for non-kinksters.

If something's gross to you, it's gross to you. Not necessarily an asshole here. Just two young people who were once right for each other, and now aren't. L-dub, you aren't going to be satisfied in this relationship. Gotta move on.

Here's what i said back in 2009 when this letter was run originally. Now I'm having some fond memories:

Having my feet admired verbally, while I wear high heels makes me feel gorgeous, which is a good start to some great sex; having my toes licked or sucked does nothing for me, but it seems to make my boyfriend happy, and that makes me happy, both emotionally and a bit later, sexually. It's a fairly easy desire to accommodate. And now it's beginning to be more erotic for me because the associations of the overall context of the sex that specific act occurs in have been so pleasurable. But it wasn't easy for me to initially go with it. I didn't feel repulsed so much as self-conscious and foolish. But it meant something important to my bf, so I tried it for his sake. If I had absolutely hated it, after giving it a shot, I would have told him, and I like to think we would have tried a compromise--but I don't hate it.

If it isn't absolutely horrifying to you, I think you should try to please your partner, and at at least see if you can get satisfaction from knowing that you are turning him/her on.

Missed opportunity alert:

Fetishist Frustrated Sexually

I admire a well-proportioned foot, and look forward to sandal season and the opportunities it presents to check them out. I might occasionally caress them during sex, but that's as far as it goes.

The real weirdos are those who have irrational hangups about feet, and who stigmatize foot fetishists.

In defense of the foot fetish non-participant.. anything involving making out with my feet, or extended touching of my feet would be hard no for me. I'm extremely ticklish, to the point of gasping for air if I'm tickled. Since I feel like I can't breathe, being tickled causes me a panic response and I pretty much invoulentarily thrash around trying to escape the tickling. It's not boring, or something I'm not into, or inconvenient; it's possibly the physical sensation I hate most, and makes me feel the way I assume claustrophobic people feel in closed spaces.

I would probably let my partner try it once just so they could understand how much it's irredeemably unpleasant for me though. So, basically, I think the reason for not wanting to go there matters, and not even Dan Savage know how different things feel to different people.

And yes, it's pretty hard for me to sit through a pedicure, even when they use all the tricks to make it not tickle as much.

@12: What you wrote is entirely reasonable, but I bet there would be room for compromise were you faced with that situation. Assuming that tickling wasn't part of the fetish, a considerate partner would attempt to engage with your feet in a non-ticklish way. Maybe it would work, maybe it wouldn't, but at least you two could try.

@3: Also reasonable. There are many valid reasons why an individual might not want to indulge a kink, or even something more mainstream.

Maybe his girlfriend had athletes foot and was embarrassed to tell him but he insisted and now he has athletes foot on his cock.

Would you really enjoy doing something to someone knowing they just weren’t into it anyway?

I disagree with the advice here.

The most immediate reason is that he's 23; he should be going out and fucking dozens of women to find out what he likes--sexually and also in terms of his interaction with a partner (how they divide chores; whether they have long conversations; how they go out--to restaurants, art galleries, etc.) Being with one person is too few to know whether this one person could make him happy long-term.

The bigger reason I disagree is that I think someone's hard 'no' should be respected as a 'hard no', irrespective of the social consensus on whether the ask is trivial. In my own sex life, I would view anilingus and exhibitionism as asks as trivial and straightforward as many hets take foot worship. 'What! You're not going to eat me out.... You're going to deny me something as simple, as easy, as hot, as beautiful as that!'. But if they say 'no', they say 'no'; and the connection goes from being something with potential to a sometime thing or a one-off. The alternative to this view--to understanding sexual relationships as nothing more than a negotiated match-up of sexual options--is to revert to a world where some people are taken to have perversions just because their interests are those of a minority. It leads to the raising of an eyebrow, at the very least, at eg homosexuals or especially at effeminate bottoms.

@12. StillAround. Are your genitals not ticklish? Just curious.

@8. philosophy school dropout. Quite. You are the only person I agree with.

People are not saying, 'sure, my risqué is your gross'. They're asking, 'foot fetishism--how gross is it? Does it fall on the not-so-gross or intolerably gross side of the line?'. There's no universal answer; and the concern isn't germane in considering whether to suggest to FSH's gf she let him suck her toes or not.

Still @12, yes, I have very ticklish feet -- I too despise pedicures -- and if I found myself with a foot fetishist, I think that would be an irreconcilable sexual incompatibility. That said, Sporty is on to something in asking what the foot fetish entails. Foot massages? Who could dislike those? Toe sucking? A ticklish person might find that the unpleasant kind of torture. "Once in a while" needs to be defined, too. I remember a letter from a man who "just" wanted to spank his non-submissive wife until her butt was red once a month. SFF should take a course in foot massage; this might help his partner learn to enjoy attention being paid to her feet, which he could gradually progress to kissing/sucking them. But if this is a must for him and a hard no for her, neither is wrong, they just need to go their separate ways.

Anti-creepy training video for foot fetishists, by the immortal Count Boogie:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oFAozYmmjWs

From letter I don't get the sense that he's asked the all important why question. She may have overly sensitive feet or she could consider it gross and revolting. Is she opposed to even just getting her feet massaged? How strongly has he pushed it Would she opposed to him satisfying his foot fetish with a sex worker? He sounds reasonable, but does she feel like he is pressuring herr?

Oh, dear - this is making me worry about the LW who didn't like that his boyfriend wanted to call him homophobic slurs and Mr Savage cajoled him into indulging it - granted, on conditions, but the conditions seemed like the temporary tax cuts for the working class that will phase out in a few years while the corporate tax cuts are permanent.

Friar @21, thank you. One person's trash is another's treasure, and one person's mild kink is another's hard limit. If she's revolted by this, she shouldn't have to cringe and bear it.

Skeptic @19, exactly right too. There are too many unknowns here. She won't indulge his foot fetish "in any way" -- not even modelling her feet while he masturbates? What exactly does he want to do with her feet, and why exactly is she against foot play? Is it possible for them to meet somewhere in the middle? And indeed, and I'm surprised Dan didn't suggest it, would she be opposed to his indulging his kink with a sex worker or at a femdom fetish club?

It's too bad that back-and-forth with letter writers is so infrequent. We thinking people wish it had happened most of the time, and it seems to me a rare every-few-months thing.

Maybe not "indulging my fetish in any way" means he can't even just look at her "modelling her feet while he masturbates"(BiDanFan@22). Maybe no amount of touching, no matter how careful not to be ticklish, is on the table.

If both of these, then Dan's diagnosis of selfish seems the most likely answer. Because while (like our Merc1994@3) some body-shaming asshole ex could have made her feel insecure or traumatized about her feet, or she could have developed such a reaction herself, that's a lot less common than selfish people are I figure.

But were it to be that uncommon match of a body-part-shamed person with someone with a fetish for that body part, probably better to part.

After which it would be nice for the body-part-traumatized person to give themself the gift of some therapy, just to reach for their own healthy wholeness, not that that will likely make them a good match.

There's always that line between saying people should be ggg for their partners and that people have the right to draw their own boundaries and that their "no's" should be respected. It's not a permanent line and it's not very dark. There are lots of factors--this letter didn't give us any of them.

I think that unless the ask triggers a trauma or is really, really far outside the bounds of what most people have heard of as far as sex acts go (including foot play, but not, say, pie-smashing-in-the-face or a diaper-wearing adult baby, which are a bit less well-known) and requires little effort from a partner, it should be tried for the sake of the partner. In other words, if person A loves person B, A should thoughtfully consider B's sexual request, and if it neither triggers A due to specific issues A has, nor requires too much from A in terms of effort or extreme actions, person A should try B's thing at least once or twice.

Everyone has hard limits and those should be respected, but it would be good if the person with the limits could explain the reason for the limit, or could examine their own initial attitude.

For instance, I am not a fan of the feeling of having my foot licked ordinarily (my feelings towards foot-licking change if my clit is being stimulated while my foot is being licked), but it doesn't really bother me, so I'll agree to that. The man I was in a relationship with who was a foot-fetishist found feet gorgeous and sexy, as did the participants at the foot-worship parties that I attended. I don't find feet especially attractive, but neither am I disgusted by them, and not all feet are stinky, and one can always wash one's feet. If a partner finds some part of me or my responses arousing, I am generally happy. Thus my experiences of having my feet licked as part of sex was about worship and appreciation, not humiliation.

I also get nothing physical out of the experience of licking someone else's foot, but I've been ordered to do that, and, in sub-mode, the fact that I /wouldn't/ ordinarily do that and didn't enjoy it made that fun for me, because that inclusion of foot-licking in the sex /was/ about being humiliated. But the humiliation was of being made to do something degrading, not the humiliation of being denigrated for a physical attribute. That is the kind of humiliation that works erotically for me, but others may be aroused by having what is characterized as their shortcomings pointed out. Your milage may vary, assuming you get off on being humiliated or on humiliating your partner.

If I had a partner who wanted to try furry sex, I would give it a whirl--it seems more silly than sexy to me, but who knows? I might find I liked it; or the costume might just function as clothes, in the sense that once the costume comes off, the sex is of the more typical kind that the two of us already enjoyed. I have tried piss play to please a partner: it isn't at all sexy for me, and I don't really enjoy it, but it meant a lot to him to at least try it and it wasn't /awful/ for me, so I can incorporate it very occasionally. I don't think I'd be willing to try the diaper-thing, however: the association of babies and diapers with sex is gross to me. That would be a hard limit, and I'd expect to have my "no" to a request for adult-baby play, especially including diapers, respected.

Feet are interesting, because on one hand, the fetish is well-known and fairly benign, requiring little from the person of whom it is asked, but on the other hand, our culture often tells us feet are disgusting and stinky and if someone has internalized that message about their own feet--even if their feet are normal and not particularly smelly and even though the fetish is relatively low-impact, it might be a very hard request to fulfill out of shame and disgust. (Assuming that the person isn't aroused by humiliation; if the person is turned on by being humiliated, that's a different story!) If someone has been teased about their feet, if they are always embarrassed and self-conscious about their feet, and their partner wants to incorporate foot-worship into the sex the two are having, I see two possible appropriate actions:
1) the self-conscious person tries to see his feet through the eyes of his partner, who reassures him that she finds his feet sexy.
2) the self-conscious person examines his attitude, decides that it's too traumatizing to him to have attention paid to his feet, and says, "I'm sorry; I want to be able to try things for you, but this brings up a lot of childhood trauma and I really don't think I can do it without being pulled out of the moment and sent into a spiral of old self-loathing."

If it's response #1, the self-conscious person may end up finding that the thing their partner wants really isn't all that bad; they may get a lot of satisfaction out of providing their partner with something that satisfies or arouses the partner so much; they may come to find that they actually enjoy the sensation or the associated corollary sensations. Win-win.

If it's response #2, then the person who wants the thing has to learn to take their partner's "no" graciously.

But if the person whose partner has a foot fetish just has a knee-jerk reaction of, "eww, feet: gross!," then I think they should examine that reaction and consider trying something for their partner's sake.

Y'all probably already know this, but I just got a laugh from stumbling upon a blog "Internet Famous Angry Men" that some years back made fun of "MRAs of Savage Love": https://idledillettante.com/tag/faptastic/

Good idea. Fun to make fun of them here, but doing so without them seeing it has advantages not like not wasting our time here with their heads imploding.

The most interesting thing about this discussion to me is the number of people who say they hate having their feet touched to the point they can barely sit through a pedicure.

I absolutely understand this, and that's why I've never had a pedicure. So, if one of you wouldn't mind answering - why are you having pedicures at all? Why pay to have someone do something to you that is far from mandatory, that you don't like?

As a fetishist, I have a hard limit on sounding. It’s a “no” plain and simple. I don’t think it looks fun, it looks painful and uncomfortable. If a Dom wanted to do it, and it was a deal breaker for him, we would have to shake hands and part friends, live well!
The girlfriend has the right to say no to foot play, the LW has to decide if that is a deal breaker. If it is, then move on.

I have a hard limit on even just reading posts talking about sounding.

Have they discussed any of her kinks? I know that people are supposed to be honest about their kinks with their partners, but instead of saying that he had a kink he possibly should have let it evolve naturally. First, is she opposed to oral sex (licking, sucking etc as a recipient or a giver). I assume not so here goes. Start by stroking and kissing her inner thighs and work your way down. Get her used to foot play as a natural part of their sex play.

I personally would love my feet pampered. But for the sake of balance, I should share this:

https://youtu.be/ustNTuq2HKc

It's worth remembering that, although I can't imagine how, some people find foot touching gross.

I am a 23-year-old male who has been in a relationship with a great woman for four years now..

So depending on what he means by relationship, he was at most 19 when the relationship started. How old is she and how much experience does she have? Is this her first sexual relationship? Is he her first sexual partner? Has she developed any kinks or is she too young and inexperienced to know?

So many relevant questions and as usual so little information.

Merc @ 3 Find someone who enjoys giving foot massages (or a massage therapist) which is not necessarily a kink.

Curious @25, I was not aware of this! Bye-bye some free time as I investigate.

Agony @26, in my case, my sister insisted that we all get mani-pedis for her wedding. Never again.

Skeptic @29, that sounds incredibly tickle-inducing to me. Sorry. I revert to my counter suggestion that he take a foot massage course, because I hated my feet being touched until I dated a qualified massage therapist. She touched me in a way that didn't tickle and helped me get over my aversion to my own ugly feet, and now I am able to tolerate some toe sucking, though it isn't my preference.

Skeptic @31, yes. At its root the answer to this question is "you're too young to think of this person as your life partner, break up and date around."

curious @25 "MRAs of Savage Love"

Hm. Apparently seandr (no longer with us, but I remember him as a funny guy, whose posts were often "risqué", but who was generally respected among the commenters) and Philophile are "MRAs" according to that blog. I don't know.

@34 RE
Wow, you read more than I did. (I didn't even read most of the URL I pasted.)

I did a search on Philophile and I see the blogger did figure our that Philophile is not a guy at https://idledillettante.com/2014/08/21/mras-of-savage-love-for-better-or-worse/

@24. nocute. Your first and last paragraphs are absolutely right. Partners /should/ seek to overcome their aversions to be GGG.

I feel more that the emphasis should fall on what happens when one partner says--'I want to be GGG; I've tried doing it, I'm not saying you're gross for wanting it, I've tried getting my head round it, but it's just too much for me'. (For whatever reason that it's too much for them). There's one fairly pervasive assumption that such a couple are sexually incompatible and should break up--but I think it would be a 'good thing', loosely speaking, if there were a greater social acceptance of alternative relationship-forms alongside monogamy catering to this sort of eventuality.

@26. agony. Are all pedicures cosmetic? Aren't some in effect chiropractic treatments?

It's possible the same features that make someone's feet touchy eg bunchy toes, tendency to ingrowing toenails, mean that the same person needs chiropractic treatment.

RE @34, yes. I thought that blogger was unfair to both of them. SeanDR was a valuable commenter, and this is a column about sex; one can't offer positive examples from one's own sex life? I know I've done that myself, this isn't a moan fest. And I wonder whether learning Philophile was female changed the blogger's opinion of how "sexist" her typically good advice was. Good thing, I suppose, that this blogger quit her "MRAs of Savage Love" feature before coming across, well, certain commenters I trust I don't have to name. Perhaps she realised there weren't enough hours in the day. (I wonder if she has appeared in the comments section? Hmm!)

Harriet @37, the word you are looking for is podiatry (chiropody in British English), not chiropracty. But yes, sometimes a pedicure is medical in nature. Elderly and pregnant people, for example, can be incapable of trimming their own toenails.

@38. Bi. Right on everything but the vocabulary! I'll take that. Are chiropractors bonesetters?

I lose faith in an outer of MRAs when it turns out that they've gotten the gender of the person they're critiquing wrong.

This blogger's nuance-o-meter is not fine enough for SL. A regular commenter may have an interesting scattermap of views from week to week--often feminist; sympathetic to monogamy one week, to monogamishness the next--and come over exceptionally as MRA-y. This is life's rich pageant. It was maybe the condoning of cheating on this occasion that was too much for philophile.