/lit/ - Literature

>>20259176
So Schopenauer was a footchad?

>>20259176
>>20259368
Feet seemed to have been aesthetically appreciated much more before modern times. Whenever I read old books they compliment people's feet a lot. I wonder what is responsible for the change?

>>20259664
mass media used feet to mock and scare
audiences

>>20259176
same can be said of tables and chairs, even pianos. none works well with large feet. more a fun rarity, like height, small feet permit imagination their vehicle

>>20260028
There's some tribes that prefer large feet on women to small feet. Also men look aesthetically worse with feet that are too small, no?

>>20259368
>>20259664
No. He literally went on to describe teeth afterwards.

Feetfags love to focus on famous people who occassionally mention feet, but always seem to forget them talking about calves or shoulders or waists or necks or cheeks or anything else. Selective reading is a bitch. And if anything, detracts from the aesthetic whole of these writings and limits them to feetfags narrow concept of things.

>>20260148
Schizo?

>>20260173
yes, but that doesnt detract from my point that fetishists, by their very nature of overfocusing on a single aspect, loose sight of the whole.

>>20259176
>>20259368
It clearly wasn't sexual. It was a romantic and aesthetic analysis. Schopenhauer hated sensuality and hedonism and held hygienic objections to onanism and what we now call sexual fantasy. As the other poster pointed out, he explained the entirety of the body this way and teeth included. Footfags and other fetishists would be a total abomination to schoppy as their wills are captive to animalistic impulses and aren't free. If he said the delivers laughter is heard after copulation, how much worse then is it when even the act is disordered. You were filtered hard.

>>20259176
Every time someone mentions small feet my brain instantly goes to images of what Chinese used to do to their women in name of "beauty", when it was actually a cruel manifestation of insecurity, both in men that wished to absolutely control their women and young girls prepared to go through any length to get a husband.
I mean, they are hardly alone in weird and creepy practices, although most of them seem to originate from protecting girls from being kidnapped into slavery, while this one is simply justified by foot fetishism.

>>20260209
>>20260230
"Foot fetishism" is just a category invented by life-hating Jewish psychiatrists to stigmatise erotic and aesthetic appreciation of the pedal aspect of the human anatomy. The negative valuation does not exist before 19th century.

>>20260238
your attempt at sounding smart completely misses the point of the distinction. a fetishist is someone that over focuses and obsession on a particular aspect to the neglect of others. if you simply appreciate the feet as a single quality of many that is not fetishism. Your reaction seems more insecure then anything. Someone who only comments on feet would be seen as a fetishist. Just as someone who picks out only feet passages in historical texts when there was an equitable amount of time spent on other body parts.

You can really apreciate a good rounded apreciation for the female form in a lot of 19th century novels where they will spend whole paragraphs on shoulders or rosy cheeks. And you can get a sensation of total apreciation for the subject.
>>20260231
Kind of narrow veiw. there is a good book on the topic that goes into more detail in pic related. I recommend.

>>20260259
I was half-joking. But it seems in modern times that all appreciation for feet is considered 'fetishistic' or unnatural, when it wasn't before. It's not just people who like feet who point out these passages. Personally, I like feet a lot, not because I dislike the rest of the body. I like them as much as other people would like breasts or buttocks. I enjoy the whole human form, but some parts I have a special affection for. I don't *want* aesthetic appreciation of feet to be restricted to 'fetishists', but that's what the discourse often seems to be, and it's not one I like.

>>20260259
I don't feel like reading that book, my opinion is based on an interview with one of old ladies that went through foot binding, she did it to herself because of belief it will up her chances with men. It was not even a small foot as one would imagine, it's just an ugly, bent shape of a normal foot broken many times, an actual foot fetishist would probably throw up at the sight.

>>20260268
I think thats because in detail body appreciation isnt much of a thing any more. again, going back to shoulders and cheeks. and of course calves and ankles and fingers and the rest.

I guess you might be able to blame porn since you can see a vagina and milkers any time you want and you dont have to be titillated by the subtler aspects of the human form which gives you a greater appreciation for the whole.

>>20260268
What I noticed about current times is that people tend to be more open and aggressive of their appreciation, making them quite annoying and somewhat creepy. Tits and ass get a pass because they are supposed to be sexual, so nearly everyone is into one or the other (or both), but anything else makes majority confused, because they don't share the sentiment, and thus go on defensive.

>>20260291
Actually you're probably quite right. I remember now that I came to a similar conclusion. Old books and even casual diaries are quite painterly in their descriptions of human bodies. They have a knack for details that I feel has been somewhat lost.

>>20260278
an actual proud red blooded foot fetishist should learn to appreciate the delicate and refined art of the oriental foot fold. on pains of wallowing in mediocrity.

but yes thats part of it.

>>20259664
Women covered up more in those days, so if you wanted to be a coomer, you needed to pay attention to ankles and such rather than the things modern man looks at.

handCHADS where we at

>>20260797
The two body parts I pay most attention to when I’m beginning to become attracted to someone are hands and feet

>>20260797
Hands are important. Teeth are very important. Feet are sublime.

Attaching sexuality to nonsexual parts like hands and feet is faulty brain wiring, but they can tell a lot about the fitness of the person ie if they have good genes.

>>20260881
>faulty brain wiring
No basis for this judgement

>>20260881
It can also tell you if you are dealing with a trap, men tend to have bigger hands and feet.

>>20259176
why are feet so central to mira gonzalez's work?

>>20260230
What should be our ends then? What are we to do with our animalistic impulses?

>>20261361
That's the only part of herself she can still sell when she hits the wall at lightspeed.

>>20261361

>>20259176
>essential for nourishment