File :-(, x, )
Federicoxxx !KA5wYvysfQ
ecchi ?
>> Federicoxxx !KA5wYvysfQ
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
I approve of this.. yet smell drama on the horizon.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I suppose I should contribute a pic.
>> Federicoxxx !KA5wYvysfQ
     File :-(, x)
>> Federicoxxx !KA5wYvysfQ
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>134137

Ecchi.

>>134145

Close, but not. Too much foot shoved in the camera.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>134137

Looks like the girl from Erementer Gerad... aka Elemental Gelade in english
>> drawn delicacies
>>Close, but not. Too much foot shoved in the camera.

Dude, seriously, it's a frickin' FOOT! Give this whole "foot fetish" thing a rest. It's about as nastily-deviant as a the much more prevalent "boob fetish".
>> Anonymous
>>134200

If foot fetishists would give it a rest, noone else would have to. Mods already ruled - pics like that aren't /e/.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>134194
You are correct, sir!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>134271No one said a word until you brought it up. The unspoken theme and the fact that you were the one to put a label on it say more about you than the pics.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
What did I tell ya? I knew this thread couldn't go on without drama cropping up.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>134533
>>134534
>>134535
>>134536
>>134537
>>134538
>>134540
>>134541
Were all saved from threads without the common theme tying them together here. Put them all together, though, and oh noez - teh drama! Just enjoy the pics, kids.
>> Anonymous
>>134537

Needs more of this.
>> Anonymous
Great thread, except for

>>134145
>>134165

BTW, mods never made a ruling on foot fetishes, the fetishists just saw something I wrote and thought I was a mod

Obviously (as any moron knows) if it was a ruling by a mod it would be in the rules or announcements.
>> Anonymous
>>134554

Obviously, as anyone who's been on 4chan a length of time knows, you're wrong.

Rules almost NEVER get updated, no matter what's going on with a given board. Sometimes a mod makes a sticky, sometimes not. More often than not, they leave a post in the contentious thread, and that's all you see.

Nice try though.
>> saviur
     File :-(, x)
>>134533
same artist... Ino I think....
>> PJ3050
i'll starting another /e/ acceptable foot thread saturday. i'm looking through my collection now find some good pics.hopefully the kids won't start some drama.
>> PJ3050
foot fetish bashers are just a bunch of followers. they do it cus others are doing it so they jump on the band-wagon.don't you'll have something better to do then bother us. gb2 /b/ and post some cp.
>> Anonymous
>>134585

Funny that the first post you lament drama, then you make a post right after it ADDING drama.

Self-contradict much?
>> PJ3050
>>134591
i meant my thread. you'll can start all the drama you want but not in 'my' thread.i don't care about this thread.
>> Zero1 !K4FA2xfOAE
>>134393
mmm, ren is love

i need this game :/
>> Anonymous
This crap is till going on?

i highly doubt that the foot a phobes can give satisfactory awnsers to the following questions:

How exactly is a focus on the foot any more /d/ than pictures with a focus on breasts, or even underboob specifically, panties, swimuits ,or, prettymuch anything else okay in /e/?

At what point is there "too much" focus on the foot? can there be a solid rule here?

>>134145
okay, the foot a phobe complained that there was too much focus on the foot, that's what, like 10% of the image? okay, so if 10% of an image is too much, what's the acceptable rate? 6%? would 8% be much different than either? are we going to have to get out a image progam to measure every visible foot to make sure it's the acceptable precentage?

i've yet so see REAL logic that validates the complaints against the CLEAN bare feet that we usually see in these threads.
>> Anonymous
>>134627

Your use of the term "foot a phobe" is incorrect, as you're operating on the assumption that everyone who objects, is somehow at base afraid of feet.

While in reality, it is the opposing case in play - people who like feet to an ABNORMAL degree, playing in a pool of people who, for the most part, don't care.

You haven't seen an argument because you obviously don't care to read any contrary viewpoints(there have been tons upon tons upon tons of the same arguments, going over the same territory, over and over and over again. Both sides have had valid arguments made over time.)

But here it is, AGAIN, just for little old you.

A foot is not a primary or secondary sexual characteristic of a human being. It's not a sexual characteristic at all, unlike breasts, asses(by proxy.), the pubic region, etc. It's just a foot. Ergo, pics with barefooted girls are seldom complained about, unless someone's making a big deal out of it being all about the feet(and then it's not the pics, but the people being complained about, really.)

When a pic shoves the foot into the focus, and the girl is way off in the background as if she almost doesn't exist, then there is a sexual motive being assigned directly to the foot, to the EXCLUSION of all else the picture could have. This is where the problem is created, and where an ALTERNATIVE(Not shared by the majority of people) fetish comes into play.

It's a real simple standard. More girl than foot = /e/. As much or more foot than girl = /d/.
>> Anonymous
>>134638
i hear the argument, i just don't get how focus on the foot is so /d/isturbing that seeing mostly foot warrants such a collosal wig-out, or how exactly that it fits in /d/ with the dick nipples.

>It's a real simple standard. More girl than foot = /e/. As much or more foot than girl = /d/.

so can you agree
>>134145
doesn't violate, as there's blenty of girl along with the foot?
>> Anonymous
>>134669

>/d/isturbing

You are under the impression that /d/ stands for "fucking sick insanity." This is also incorrect. In fact, /d/'s rules make it clear that extreme material is NOT permitted there.

/d/ is, as it states, hentai/ALTERNATIVE. This means(since there is no /ed/ for Ecchi Alternative), non-mainstream fetishes go there. Foot fetishes are not mainstream, whether it's smelling/footjobs, or just getting aroused by the sight of a foot shoved in your face. It is your misconception of the nature of /d/ that needs adjustment.

If you wish to argue that 4chan could use an /ed/ board, I would agree. There are many things that fit in /d/, like fat girls, goo girls, feet, etc, that are not technically hentai, but don't belong in /e/ or /h/ either.

>so can you agree

No. Because you're measuring by some kind of "this many pixels" standard. I'm measuring by the focus of the picture. There is much more foot featured in the pic, than the girl.
>> Anonymous
>>134638
I think it is because a certain group of people are being singled out. I think the argument for breasts and asses are very valid. If a foot takes up less then 10% of the screen is called out to be /d/ material, then breasts and asses that take up more then 50% of the screen should belong there too. To be fair all of those kind of topics should go in /d/ so that way nobody is being singled out.
>> Anonymous
>>134688

It happens because that's the current problem on the board.

A month back, this problem didn't exist. People posted threads full of pics like the OP all the time, sometimes with a foot label and sometimes not, but nobody cared. It didn't matter at all.

Somewhere in that period, the people who liked feet decided /d/ wasn't the place for them after all, and started moving the fetish pics into here instead. Thus resulted in all the problems we're seeing now.

When something's a problem, of course it gets singled out. When loli's been a problem on the board, it's been singled out. When people were crossing the line with chubby girls, and posting leviathans all over the board, it was singled out. All it means when a certain group of people are singled out, is that those people are being a problem for the regular status quo of the board.
>> Anonymous
>>134685
you haven't been to /d/ have you?

what subject there couldn't be seen as /d/isturbing...
you know what, forget I asked, I forgot I was on 4chan, whwere consent IS disgusting.
>> Anonymous
Less whining, more pictures
>> Anonymous
>>134700

That's often somewhat subjective. On a given day, I see plenty of things there that aren't "lol tentacles through the stomach." Tickling threads, for example. Those are pretty tame, yet they're /d/ and everyone accepts it. Breast expansion isn't my thing at all, but I'd be hard pressed to call it disturbing. Dickgirls are INCREDIBLY tame as far as hentai goes, except to some oversensitive people. Goo girls are usually surprisingly cute, considering the title.

Of course, there are things there that are somewhat disturbing(To me) as well, but that's the trouble with the current catch-all-that's-alternative nature of the board.
>> Anonymous
>>134638It's not a sexual characteristic at all, unlike breasts
Actually, it's only in America that breasts are fixated on so intently as sexual anatomy. In the rest of the world, they are naturally admired, but are not considered for the most part that much more sexual than the rest of the body.

And what about people that like "a nice set of gams" or eyes to die for like Barbra Eden, or specific hair color? There's a difference between parts of the body that are viewed as sexual and parts that are viewed as **sensual**. To label the tits, ass, and genitalia as the only parts of the body worth fixating on in terms of sexual arousal belittles the rest of the female body as a comprehensive whole of sensual beauty and delight.
>> PJ3050
if you can't apprecaite a female and all her sexy features then you might be gay.
>> Anonymous
>>134703
I agree , more pics would be nice.
>> Anonymous
>>134807
good point, and i was about to bring the "apply the logic elsewhere, and if it's good logic it will also make sense" argument.

can you think of any other case where focus on another external body part is labeled /d/?
>> Anonymous
>>134985
There was a "(coiled)hair fucking" thread in /d/ previously.
Various unrealistic fetishes also cater to different portions of the body; vores are obsessed with the mouth, and crushers with the feet.
And, after the Blair Witch Project, there were probably more than a few websites all about the legendary snot jiggle scene, but let's stop here with that one, m'kay?
>> ~Shinta !wxFgSMZig2
Okay, it's not just /d/ it's "Hentai/Alternative". Feet alone are not hentai, so putting them on a hentai board is off topic and just not worthy of being put on /d/.
>> Anonymous
>>134989
>There was a "(coiled)hair fucking" thread in /d/ previously.
um yeah, that's actual fucking, using the hair.

>Various unrealistic fetishes also cater to different portions of the body; vores are obsessed with the mouth, and crushers with the feet.
specifically, it's the USE of those parts, more than the part itself. so now girls face-first in the image are /d/ mecause of focus ono the lips?

>And, after the Blair Witch Project, there were probably more than a few websites all about the legendary snot jiggle scene, but let's stop here with that one, m'kay?

um, yeah, snot than the nose, so it's not a paralell to feet simply being in front.

clean feet alone IMO are FAR from being anything that is alternative enough that it fits in /d./ more than it fits in /e/
>> Ririko
     File :-(, x)
The very thought of people fapping to feet instead of boobies scares me anyway, but whatever. Most of these pics are awesome, like>>134137. They're ecchi, just ecchi that happens to have feet in them. I see no problems here.
>> Anonymous
>>134807

Actually, gb2/school and learn what "primary and secondary sexual characteristics" are first.
>> Anonymous
>>135087
Nice try, but not even an /e/ for effort.
>> Anonymous
>>135030They're ecchi, just ecchi that happens to have feet in them. I see no problems here.
As I mentioned in 134542, all of the pics I posted appeared in other threads that were totally unrelated. By themselves, they're apparently fine. Put them together into one thread, however, and they become a source of drama. Now, I don't get the whole fixation on the foot thing, but since I have no love of high heels, sandals, or other footwear, I'd just as soon see my babes barefoot. So it's not even a foot thing.. it's a matter of what the character is and isn't accessorized with.

Still, the fact that such pictures in unrelated threads go without notice, and become a source of conflict when gathered into one thread... even if not labeled a "foot thread"... makes little sense. But, I could get behind an alt-ecchi board. I think the perceived need for one would be pretty silly, but if it will silence the insecure dramamongers that are threatened by the sight of toes, then I have no problem with such a move.
>> Anonymous
yeah yeah! argue because you have nothing to do! prove your point for no reason! you're a winner!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Take this pic. It appears in another thread on /e/ currently. Yet no one is screaming bloody murder about it and suggesting it belong in /d/.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>135229
The feet aren't the central or foreground focus of the composition, which causes bitching, it's the usual places though. Also ghost pic, goggles do nothing joke, etc
>> Anonymous
oh damn, I'm not a foot fetishist, but I still find these pics hot.
just stop complaining already.
>> Anonymous
I HATE Foot Fetishes, but seriously, there is only about 2 pics in this thread to complain about. So why doesn't everyone bitch less, and fap more?