Not only for legs/feet/nylons lovers

[jordinyc]

This question is addressed to all people who might know the origins of specific fetishes, e.g. feet, legs or nylons. As weird as it sounds so far, I am curious if anybody knows biological/social/historical/cultural/other roots of such preferences from a scientific perspective.

It has been well known that small feet used to evoke erotic feelings in China, hence ridiculous feet binding, as well as the particular gait adopted by the Chinese women, e.g. swinging from side to side while walking. In the Chinese tradition, perhaps more than in the other (?), feet function as a special sexual object or powerful aphrodisiac which status has been cultured and subsequently reinforced for ages.

Later in our history, in the era of baroque a site of a leg or a foot covered in nylons could be responsible for fainting of a man out of a powerful, sexual influence.

Yet, this does not explain why feet in particular evoke such a strong desire in some men. Help, please.

 

[Lenieye_Moon]

Okay, let me explain this in terms of psychology and let me begin this with an example.

When you give a dog some foods, he/she would drool. That is an unconditioned response (response that comes naturally) Now, if you ring a bell consistently each time before you give a dog some foods, then just the ringing of the bell would cause the dog to drool. The dog drooling because he/she heard the bell ring is a conditioned response. (response that has been developed)

So we can apply this to man who have foot/legs fetish. When you show a man your female genital, he would get turned on. (unconditioned response). When you show the man your legs consistently before you show him your female genital, then the man would associate your legs to your genital. So, when you just show a man your legs, he would be turned on. (conditioned response)

The association of female legs to female genital maybe created by the media and/or by the man's own imagination. It does not necessary mean that the people who have foot/legs fetish was trained to have this conditioned response.

 

[[//anti * twilight//]]

Thousand,
that's very possible, no doubt, and many sexologists explain the development of fetishes that way. Thanks for bringing this up! However, I think there's more to it than just Pavlovian stimulus-response reflex explanation. Maybe there is some evolutionary value to this similarly to breast-buttocks theory...

...our forefathers were simple creatures imitating procreation of animals. It's rather difficult to talk about any sexual sophistication at the pra-era since it could be said with high accuracy that a doggy style was the only known mating behaviour. Since women have been often considered 'trend setters', not surprisingly, in order to encourage non-conventional thinking and promote new discoveries in the area of human interaction, interesting solutions were suggested by brighter and cunning females. The pre-femme fatales started exposing their full breasts before any 'woo woo' activity that caught attention of some of the males. Soon our ancestors realized that the rear view could be exchangeably replaced by the front one due to the fact that it could successfully mimic the back perspective. This new discovery has been tested extensively and to everyones' enjoyment in various configurations giving a rise to an innovative fad later called (ironically!) a missionary style. One can only assume that these advancements hadn't been possible without some serious cortical developments of our forefathers

 

[marineswife]

There just isn't a generally accepted explanation for fetishes, never mind a scientific one. Lots of speculation however. I believe the Victorian sexologist Havelock Ellis used a type of conditioning explanation.

From the psychoanalytic point of view, fetishes are stories masquerading as sexual objects. The question is, what story? The classical explanation sees fetishes as phallic symbols, offering the man reassurance around the issue of castration anxiety, i.e. a reassurance that a woman's genitals do not lack a penis. It's a clinical theory, not a scientific one.

vvv

 

[ezzzzz]

I really cant comment for others. But I do enjoy a pair of clean feet that are attached to a pair of smooth, sexy legs, that in turn are attached to a pelvis with a semi shaved patch that in turn are attached to a chest with a pair of well rounded bosums that in turn are attached to a slender neck and topped off with a head with an attractive face and natural hair.

Heck, there isnt one part of an attractive female anatomy that doesnt turn me on. As long as its clean that is....

I heard from one lady that had a guy with a foot fetish ask her to wear hot sweaty boots to work up a sweat so he could inhale the odour....now, that is a little too kinky for me.

 

[VIVA USA]

We should be clear that there is a difference between fetishes and fashions. Making the distinction will help keep any discussion on the rails.

A fetish is an object, e.g. shoes, nylons, etc., which a person sees as having sexual significance and without which, the person doesn't experience sexual excitement.

Obviously a person who prefers breasts to asses doesn't have a fetish. They have a preference. And big boobs, for example, may be a north american preference, amounting almost to an obsession, but it's a fashion, not a fetish.

vvv

 

[shann]

Alanis,
That is interesting and it could be possible. I heard another theory stated that we are basically controlled by our DNA. Our gene basically controls our conscious and our desire. When a man gets turned on from looking at woman

 

[Lore]

I believe I enjoy women in nylons and heels for the following reasons: I love dominant women and a woman who allows me to admire her feet is clearly one who is confident in her sexuality. Stockings and heels have been long equated with beauty and sexiness. I'm sure that this is conditioning in the best possible sense. Also, I can tell you from experience that there is nothing sexier than being with a woman who knows how to use her feet. There is no one type of foot that I'm attracted to either. I've dated women with small feet that have turned me on as well as women with very large but elegant feet that have turned me on even more. Whatever the case, the scenario that has turned me on the most is one where the woman wears black silk stockings with a reinforced toe and heel of some sort and high open toe heels. This is the combination that gets me going 100 percent of the time.
Blu

 

[Dan]

I too enjoy women in nylon, especially when the woman is in black laced stockings. It really drive me crazy. I wouldn't be able to keep my eyes off it, especially her feets.

 

[ITS A GIRL]

I don't know why, but nylons and pantyhose (on a woman!!!) have always driven me nuts too. Way back to when I was a kid. I've never heard a plausible explanation for a fetish.

Thousand, please keep coming up with theorys though, you're hilarious!

Sheik, was it really necessary to specify that you like the foot 'attached' to the leg. I should fucking hope so.

 

[mrsCULLEN]

Good point Lucky!

Although I really do have a preference for when the feet are attached to her legs and her ears at the same time...............


Jazzman.

 

[Icy]

Yes, it's rather difficult to trace origins of your own fascination with fetishes. I always used to think that having a special appreciation for a woman wearing a nice pair of stockings, lace lingerie and high hills is a sign of aesthetic sophistication and complex sexuality. I know that when I wear this feminine stuff, I feel like an ultimate powerful, whimsical, a bit distant, godess-quality seductress. Well, what a woman wouldn't be, having a man crawling out of unsatiable and excruciating desire at her feet? Similar to a dark femme fatale Venus wearing a provocative red lipstick, knee high leather boots, a long fur coat and nothing underneath.

 

[Claire]

Hi all, i'm new to this board, and in reading i loved the discussion you been having on this beautiful topic.

In Hindu custom, we always touch our forehead to the feet of elders, priests, sages, great people, our parents and husbands and wives, etc...

Even in the Kama Sutra, and Yoga, feet are the most important parts of the human body. In yoga we always give respect to our feet, from waking up in the morning, to performing yoga and going to bed at night.

The reason for all of this is, speaking of energy, energy is transmitted through our feet and into our bodies. The entire energy in our bodies is circulated, and our well being etc... all because of this entrance of energy. As you all know, through reflexology the stimulus from our soles can massage any internal or external aspect of our bodies.
As well as sensually stimulate us.

Anyways, i guess i'm blabbing, but i do yoga, and for god sakes, i love feet!!! They turn me on, ever since i was a kid. I just remember looking at sears catalogues and looking at women's feet. Ever since then, i've always loved them. And now i teach yoga and reflexology.

Now i just need to find someone who loves feet as well...

Anyways,
thanks

 

[hopefull411]

The way I see it, people who are hard core fetishist seem to me to be lacking in something. For example, if a person simply loves feet and nothing else, you have to question the mindset of that person. Because you are totally ignoring 90% of the human anatomy and furthermore you are ignoring 99% of your own mind. I suggest that every person should try out all the popular fetishes that your willing to try. It spices up your life and expands your horizons.

As for the reason for fetishes, that can be explained genetically. First off, all psychological and physical responses can be broken down to chemical interactions in the brain. And a person's attraction to a specific part of the human anatomy is the result of the continual evolution of the human mind and the genetic makeup of that human being. Since everyone's genetic makeup is somewhat different than everyone else's, that means that each individual produces different amounts of proteins, enzymes and endorphins in the body and brain. So if I'm a foot fetishist when I see a woman's feet (visual stimuli) the brain will tell the body to produce large amounts of the set of chemicals that triggering an extreme emotional response in me, more so than in some other guy who doesn't have a foot fetish. But likewise, maybe this guy likes bondage more than me, so in his DNA you will find more repetition of the genes that produce enzyemes that trigger a high emotional response to leather, whips, and chains. More repetition means more likelihood of higher amounts of specific chemicals. So when he get's some form of stimulus (ie being spanked, wearing crotchless leather pants), his body is more excited.

As for the prevalence of certain fetishes in different cultures. That can also be explained genetically. Maybe chinese people as a whole like small feet more than the average caucasian. That's because in their society (moreso in the past) small feet we're a sign of beauty on a woman but this does not exclude people of other cultures from having the same attraction (same genetic make up but just in different proportions). So when a man is looking for a possible mate he looks for small feet (genetic selection). This came to a point where women actually bound their feet to make them smaller than what they were naturally. This attitude/opinion towards small feet can easily be passed from father to son, so over time small feet will be genetically expressed more often than big/large feet, as well as the genes responsible for a high emotional response to small feet. These genes are then imbedded into the genetic makeup of the human genome. That's why certain fetishes (feet, breast, eye attractions) are more popular than others (bondage). We've all had feet longer than we've had PVC.

As for the exact origin of fetishes. Who knows? Maybe our ancestors associated small feet to good tree climbing skills. Clean unblemished feet to a person who doesn't have to work so hard. Big round eyes might mean he/she can spot predators easier, or catch possible prey quicker. A woman's full lips might mean she eats well and is never hungry. Seeing a woman in a dominatrix outfit might mean she's good at making leather and other warm clothing for the winter. So the more desireable traits were passed on from generation to generation along with the more common desires of the human mind (the supply and demand come hand in hand).

 

[<3SKYI<3]

Squating Tiger:

I find it unlikely that we are genetically programmed to respond to feet, whips, and crotchless pants. It's just a tad too specific. Such specificity is more like something you'd find in, say, birds and their response to songs.

Interesting that at the beginning of this century one had types of instinctual theories for human behaviour. They are now long since discredited. They explained everything and so, nothing.

One has to ask how one would test the profferred explanation. Just how would you disconfirm it? To be able to provide such a test helps separate serious scientific thought from wild speculation.

vvv

 

[Katherine J]

Sorry to that it sounds that simple. I guess I oversimplified all that genitic programing stuff. I shouldn't say we're programmed, just that if a person has more expression of one gene than another person, the likelyhood in having a specific fetish is just increased. There are random variables that will produce a fetishist (for example the environment and other individuals), not everyone has the same experiences in life.

So if you believe in genetics, it is possible that having attractions to specific fetishes all boils down to the varying degrees expression of certain genes from person to person. But you also have to believe in two other basic facts. 1) all emotional actions and reactions are caused by chemical imbalances in the brain; 2) the theory of evolution.

I don't think these theories have been proven or disproven. Once we finally figure out what each and every gene is responsible for in the human genome and until we fully understand how the human brain works, I can't see any theory to be absolute.

 

[Mads]

Originally posted by Squating Tiger
Sorry to that it sounds that simple. I guess I oversimplified all that genitic programing stuff. I shouldn't say we're programmed, just that if a person has more expression of one gene than another person, the likelyhood in having a specific fetish is just increased. There are random variables that will produce a fetishist (for example the environment and other individuals), not everyone has the same experiences in life.

Agreed. Behaviour is a product of both nature and nurture but what aspects of nature and nurture and in what proportions? And given the lack of basic knowledge about the phenomena in question, isn't it a little early to be rushing to physical explanations?

Originally posted by Squating Tiger
So if you believe in genetics, it is possible that having attractions to specific fetishes all boils down to the varying degrees expression of certain genes from person to person. But you also have to believe in two other basic facts. 1) all emotional actions and reactions are caused by chemical imbalances in the brain; 2) the theory of evolution.

I don't think that you could say that all emotional actions are caused by chemical imbalances in the brain. Certainly chemical and electrical reactions accompany emotional reactions, as they do all other cognitive processes. To go further than that is more an act of faith in a materialist position than good science.

Another point: you have to look for the most useful level of explanation for a given phenomena. I suppose that you could even try to explain the meaning of a joke (festishes are kinda like that!) by reference to superstring theory or quantum mechanics, but I have no idea what that explanation would look like and how useful it would be.

vvv

 

[yellowstar171]

I stepped into something and I can't get out.

VVV you lost me on that superstring and quantum mechanics stuff. I hated math and physics in school. I guess I should have payed more attention in class rather than copy, uh I mean brainstorm with the braniacs. The closest I got to a upper year physics text was when I was taking a biomechanics course, and all the math I needed to know there was already assumed to be taught in previous courses.

So help me help you help me to understand.

 

[nowhereman]

man...is this a lot of reading...to tell you the truth...I read it but really can't make anything of it...I know I have a fetish for legs but explained like this...not too sure anymore...or maybe I'm just "into" legs...

 

[AhManDuh]

Okay, let me make my point in another way. When you try to explain complex mental phenomena, like a fetish, by way of chemical reactions, you're going to lose a lot in the translation. Maybe you'll lose the essentials in the translation. It's kinda like saying that an oak tree is essentially acornish. Yeah, the acorn is essential and the tree develops from it, but you can't reduce the one to the other.

Forget about superstrings and quantum mechanics. Suppose that we lived in a Newtonian universe. If, at some point, we knew the mass and velocity of all its particles, then in theory, we could forecast the entire future of all its phenomena. Consider someone, in such a universe, telling a joke. We could predict and explain that in physical terms. Certain atoms and other particles in his brain would do their little dance. However, that sort of explanation would not tell us why the joke was funny or even what funny is. Similarly, I think, with a fetish.

vvv