/lit/ - Literature

>>19369369
based comic enjoyer

>>18188993
Clean, soft, smooth, feminine. Curvaceous but not to the point of classical dancers' feet.

However—this is an important addendum—when they have some slight, super slight feature or detail that "breaks" the perfection, the attractiveness is increased. This especially involves the shape. A perfect foot is supposed to be proportionate in all its parts. I won't go into detail and explain what constitutes this proportion (English is not even my first language) but I'm pretty sure there's some golden ratio that can be applied to feet just like to the rest of the body. For instance, the sole must not be too large but also not too slander, the toes must not be too short but also not too long, the skin must be soft but not so soft that it feels dry, and so on. Now, if I imagine a perfect foot (and perfect feet not only exist, but are also very common in foot modeling and foot fetish porn, especially among Western/Northern white women) I truly wholeheartedly admire it, to the point that I desperately ask how such perfection and purity can even be possible in nature. Feet perfection usually leaves me dumbfounded and speechless. BUT, the problem is that this perfection soon turns out to be merely the gateway of foot fetishism. You appreciate them, but don't love them. A very proportionate, feminine, well-cared, immaculate foot is desirable and upsetting, but it lacks something. And that something is a seed of its opposite: imperfection. So here is what experience taught me: the type of foot that I really love, the one that I keep coming back to with my mind and memory, the one that freezes its image in the occipital lobe of my brain, the one that truly conquers my senses and my heart like something that *needs* my attention and devotion (pay attention to this point because it's literally the same with women) — is the foot that TENDS to perfection but DOESN'T reach it, the foot that is largely perfect but still conserves a shred of imperfection, the foot that is flawless but holds that subtle irregularity, that puzzling and ambiguous deviation from the golden ratio of feet. This, as I said, is especially determined by the shape. Not by the external care that the owner dedicates to the foot, which must be clean and healthy and well-treated, but by the carnal form that God or Nature decided for it. How you may discern the foot that has all the opposites enclosed in it—included perfection AND imperfection—and if there are objective criteria to be used other than intuition — I really can't tell. The explanation of this goes beyond my possibilities.