You know, usually I'm a do what you like, person when it comes to sex, as long as everything is consensual (except for Furries, those people freak me out I will admit).

However, if I ever met a guy with a foot fetish and he had one of these, I'd probably call him a pervert (and then leave quickly). He could be a very nice person, but methinks I couldn't take that.

That last photo was disturbing, possibly for how unreal that dildo looked but even still. I thought the whole foot fetish thing was over FEET, not putting vaginas in feet.

Question: Do women have foot fetishes as well, or is this predominately a guy thing?

I'm not a foot fetishist, but I have to say that I don't get this. (1) don't fetishists want the ankle of a fake foot to have a pant cuff or something so it doesn't look ... didmembered!? and (2) artificial vagina in the artificial foot? I'm wiht UM -- is there anybody who is actually into this, or did someone with a poor grasp of what the market wanted dream this one up?

Umm, this product must satisfy a need that I never knew existed. And there's preference for right or left feet? Who knew?

The most disturbing thing is that it advertises itself as practice for real feet. Do real feet have vaginas, or vagina like qualities about them? (scans feet) Is this a common birth defect?

Hey Jessica, I know you said "disburting image below" but I guess I thought in some way those feet were meant as an art-y kind of thing. (Pussy+foot, literal statement I guess) Not a sex toy! I literally shrieked out loud and my coworker came over to see what I was looking at. Oops.

I like the bit about how you can practice your sexy skills on the silicone foot so that you're a pro once you get a hold of a real one--yeah, I think it would be a lot different to go from boneless, detached vagina feet that may or may not have the toes webbed together to a real foot with a ticklish person attached...

Wow. Just, wow.

I know/have known foot fetishists who like to rub against feet in a sexual way even to the point of orgasm so I'm not surprised at anything except the vagina on the bottom of the foot. That I don't understand at all.

So would this one be allowed in Texas?

UltraMagnus,

I'm not terribly well versed in fetishes, but from what I've read foot fetishes are pretty much the territory of heterosexual men. The article I read specifically mentioned that it was almost unheard of for a gay male to have a foot fetish. The article didn't mention bisexuals or lesbians, though.

UltraMagnus & all: it's not even just putting vaginas in feet - (aside: my spell check doesn't like the plural of "vagina", interesting) - it's also putting PENISES (spell check thinks penises is fine) in feet.
I have no words.

At first I thought the vagina on the bottom was a huge gash or puncture wound that was intended for insertion of a penis. Because us girls don't have enough holes for guys, they had to come up with fictitious ones. Ugh. Not to mention the idea of fucking a dismembered foot...

Jame Gumb only wishes that he could be this level of creepy.

At first glance, I thought it was stigmata.

...what the hell is that?

I saw this over at the livejournal community wtf_omgz a few weeks ago and my initial reaction was, "Feet are gross!" And then, "Of all the places to put a vagina...?"

I know I'm not alone in my digust of feet or of anything feet touch (like me or my things). Anyone else share in the "ick" factor of feet?

I've been known to yell at my computer screen, laugh at it, etc. But I think this is the first time I've only been able to stammer. I mean...WTF? Just...WTF?

Is this any worse than a butt flashlight, or a pocket pussy or the likeness of a dismembered penis?

All sex toys are weird and unrealistic. What makes this one especially weird for you guys?

Personally, I have always been way creeped out by those vibrators with little animals on them, or in the shape of dolphins. That shit is weeeeird.

Although, I will admit the way they are tied up with rope is pretty gross.

I generally don't judge people on their choice of sex toys or practices, but this is certainly one of the stranger and less easily overlooked that I have seen. Completely anecdotally, I have known several foot fetishists and always found them to be more open minded and female positive than the average male.

I feel like a bad feminist for saying this, but -- it's JT's Stockroom. They specialise in all kinds of weird fetish stuff and other assorted sex gear.

Yeah, I mean I think it's kind of weird that anybody would want to fuck a foot, but I'm sure I've got sex habits that would appear equally weird to other people.

MirandaJay - I think the "ew" factor comes from the fact that one cannot have sex with real feet. You can receive a "foot job," but feet do not have actual orifices. The fact that this is also being marketed as a way to practice for your real foot encounter is also disturbing beyond belief. And people think mainstream porn set us up for disappointment...

Um, yeah. I'm all for live and let live, and whatever turns you on, but I don't like fetishes which are all about removing the human from the fetishised body part. ie some hair fetish stories I've read which feature men raping women's braids while they sleep, or, well, a sex toy like this, that looks like body parts discarded after a murder and dismemberment.
I've never been one for those dildos that look like chopped off penises either, just for the record.

I'm with Peepers -- I thought it was some kind of bizarre stigmata thing.

I have to admit that part of my disgust with this particular product has to do with the fact that they are feet. To me, feet are just disgusting. Plus in this particular case, these damn things look as though they have been sliced off of some poor woman's body. Double EEW!

I've never seen a butt flashlight, but I would probably find that funny. It's just part of the sad, childish butt related humor that I enjoy. However, realistic penis and vagina sex toys creep me out too - almost as much as those animal things.

This is a reference -- conscious or no -- to the ancient practice of foot binding. As legend has it, the ideal lotus foot was bent in the middle in such a way as to create a tight fold that served wondrous for copulation. This is off the top of my head; as you all already know, footbinding legends abound.

That said, one can have sex with a foot the same way one can have sex with a hand. Unless we're saying sex can only equal penetrative intercourse... argument for another time.

Oh, and P.S.: People, please get over your disgust of feet. Your feet need your love! They're just... bigger hands with smaller fingers. (Ew, that doesn't help much, does it?)

If I remember a bit of neurology correctly, the whole foot-as-sexual allure thing is related to the individual's brain architecture.

That is to say, the nerve endings for each body part map to a corresponding area in the brain (the term 'homonculus' is used to describe the figure that this map creates). The map point for the feet is next to the map point for the genitals.

In some people, there is some overlap of these two map-point regions, which then causes a sexual association with feet.

Just like everything else, there is a continuum of feet-genital association. You can have none at all, and be actively repulsed by the idea. You can have some, and 'get it but don't share it',you can have mildly pleasant associations, or you can be totally into it to the exclusion of all else. Or anything in between.

So it's just a brain thing.

As for the dismemberment, I tend to think it's less a paean to violence as a way to make the fetishized thing portable. Although I have no doubt there are some folks who like the dismemberment aspect all by itself....

Sara, if you're a bad feminist for being kink-positive, you've got a lot of company. I'm not anti-kink at all, or (at least broadly defining fetish) anti-fetish. My criticism was pretty limited: JT's Stockroom serves kinksters. They've got silicone feet. Fine. But do they have to look like they've been cut off? That's kinda creepy. Also, the vagina thing -- a man that gets off on feet doesn't need a vagina in one to get off; real feet don't have that. They rub their cock against the surface. Do foot fetishists really want a bizarre-looking anatomical impossibility in their fake feet when they would probably rather be playing with real feet?

I consider myself to be quite sex-positive, and I have no issue with foot fetishes. Foot fetishes are very far towards the TAME end of the spectrum.

That being said, this crosses a really fucked up line. These aren't feet, they're dismembered feet. With vaginas in them. So we're dismembering females and giving them extra vaginas, since, you know, vaginas are really all that women are good for anyway.

Yeah. That definitely crosses a line.

I don't have a foot fetish but I know people who do. (A result of working in shoe stores for 5 years). But I've never known any of them to want the SCREW the foot. Most just enjoy looking at them, rubbing them, licking them, etc.

So just the fact that someone wants to SCREW the foot is what is odd to me.

The concept itself is not offensive to me (JT's Stockroom has WAY WAY more bizarre stuff), but for some reason, the rope hung around the feet like that just freaks me out.

The ad copy is actually sort of sad. Specifically the part about how using the Pussy Foot will improve your skillz when it comes to having sex with real-life feet. It's a nice thought, but you're pretty much setting yourself up to disappoint when you get that stocking off and realize you only know how to make love to feet that have vaginas on them. Actually, the whole issue of sexual performance as a foot fetishist seems sort of strange, or maybe I'm just ignorant...are there people that are actually into (as opposed to merely tolerating) being foot-worshiped? I thought that particular fetish was sort of a one-way street.

After pondering this "toy," it occurred to me what I found so disturbing wasn't so much the foot or displaced vagina, but the binding rope and the hole in the top of the dismembered ankle that resembles the space where the leg bones reside.

This device doesn't really say "foot fetish" as much as it screams "serial killer," and parallels the disturbing trend of anti-woman goriness currently afoot in the media (sorry, couldn't resist) - as evidenced in the nascent torture-horror film genre ("Saw," "Captivity," etc.) That's the deeper connection that really churns my stomach.

Ok, this post really annoys me. I am a lesbian with a foot fetish in a big way, and I think these feet are sexy. Fetishizing feet is not about ignoring the rest of the body, it is about adoring and being turned on by feet, in addition to many other body parts, mind, etc. And for all the foot haters who've commented: where would you be without your feet? They absorb the shock of five times your body weight with every step you take. Without them you couldn't walk, run, stand, squat, do yoga, do ballet, do construction work, do many many things. So how about appreciating them?? If your feet are so gross you should chop them off, then you won't have to deal with them. This is a sex toy, it is not a sexist or misogynistic tool of the patriarchy. I personally would not be turned on by silicone feet, despite their sexiness, but who's to say no one else should be? This is an example of feminists being hypersensitive when this has nothing to do with feminism (and don't say I am anti-feminist, I have been a feminist since I declared it age seven). This sex toy will either sell or it won't and neither outcome will affect feminism in any way. Politics belong out of the bedroom.

Ok, this post really annoys me. I am a lesbian with a foot fetish in a big way, and I think these feet are sexy. Fetishizing feet is not about ignoring the rest of the body, it is about adoring and being turned on by feet, in addition to many other body parts, mind, etc. And for all the foot haters who've commented: where would you be without your feet? They absorb the shock of five times your body weight with every step you take. Without them you couldn't walk, run, stand, squat, do yoga, do ballet, do construction work, do many many things. So how about appreciating them?? If your feet are so gross you should chop them off, then you won't have to deal with them. This is a sex toy, it is not a sexist or misogynistic tool of the patriarchy. I personally would not be turned on by silicone feet, despite their sexiness, but who's to say no one else should be? This is an example of feminists being hypersensitive when this has nothing to do with feminism (and don't say I am anti-feminist, I have been a feminist since I declared it age seven). This sex toy will either sell or it won't and neither outcome will affect feminism in any way. Politics belong out of the bedroom.

"I think the "ew" factor comes from the fact that one cannot have sex with real feet."

All I have to say is--duh. That's what a fantasy/fetish is about--doing something you can't or shouldn't normally do. I agree that the feet, presented as such, look a little dismembered, but the way they are used isn't inherently creepy or sexist. I agree to a certain extent with fishwithfeet--just because something that resembles a female is being used sexually doesn't make it inherently sexist. I'm sure fetishists would be just as offended by this post as y'all are by the feet.

Because I'm weird, the only thing I could think was how there's no clit on the vulva on the foot.

See, all I could think of was how painful the whole set-up looks. Can you imagine walking on your vulva? It's probably a blessing there's no clit there.

The dismembering seems normal for porn stuff. After all, how else should they terminate? Dildos look like sliced-off penises, too.

But the ropes are creepy as shit.

And the vagina... well, perhaps it's better that this is available, so the vagina-in-foot fanatics can stay at home.

Sexuality is a trip.

Eeewww. Why is this "arty?" Why does it need to degrade humans (specifically, women here) in order to "make a statement?"

Um, it's a sex toy advert, oenophile. The intended statement is "buy me."

I found MirandaJay's comment about dismembered penises pretty convincing. Fair dinkum. Changed my mind about it. I don't find the feet hawt — especially with the rope on 'em — but I'm well aware that I have some ideas about what is hawt that others would find repugnant.

Relax, people...
"Severed" feet is cheaper than to make a whole person, right? Like I have a bizarre green vibrator with no man attached to it. If you have at foot fetish it is probably very nice to have a vagina handy. Don't moralize over sex toys. They are for pleasure, and by nature harmless (unless you beat someone over the head with it, etc.).

I can think of many things more disturbing... like if those were real feet.

The part that disturbs me, though, is how they're tied up and hung up, like they've been cut off. But hey, it's just kink, it's just fantasy, and it's not real human body parts, so let them have their fun without getting all judgmental and weird all the time. This is the kind of post that makes feminists seem like prudes.

Fishwithfeet

Now we understand the origin of your nick name. I thought it was suppose to be a pun on creationist.

Actually I'm with you, in that I think feet are sexy too, but I think every part of the female body is sexy (and men's feet do absolutely nothing for me). I think what's got people in a huff is the pink toenail polish, which denotes that they were cut off of a women. I am not certain if women's severed feet as a gag item/sex toy is sexist or not, but I can see why women concerned about the rape culture we have here in America would be irk by the item. On face value I don't think the fake severed feet poses a problem, but some sicko might try to cutoff some real feet to make the fantasy real.

However no one is talking about banning the Bible, which inspires more serial killers than any other item.

So, I'm reading the comments for this post by Jessica and I notice an ad for her book on the left side. Jessica, how can you be livid about a sex toy (and not remark on the fact that dildoes, marketed to women and gay men, resemble severed penises), and yet you objectify women on the cover of the book? I've heard you address the cover issue frequently but without a satisfying answer. I've really started to doubt your commitment to young women when this is the cover you present. It's offensive, really, you want to reach young women by showing them a skinny skinny white girl's bare midriff? I won't read the book because of it, and if I were a teenaged girl I know I would have written this book off as fluff. I should also point out that you only see her "severed" midriff, much like the foot you are complaining about. I want to know: Why is it foot fetishists can't enjoy a harmless toy in the privacy of their bedrooms, according to you, but you can publish a book with a naked woman on the cover and call it feminism? I know this thread isn't about the book, but seeing it next to this prude, uppity post just irked me. Seriously, why?

Excellent point, Fishwithfeet! The only interview I have read about FFF is the one posted on this site where they asked her about and her response was kind of "Ehh... well, I've got to support my book!" And people keep jumping in and saying "Most people don't have control over their book covers" which maybe gives me the impression they made her do it, in which case, I think she should say so. The funny thing is when I first started checking Feministing and saw that ad for FFF I actually thought it was some kind of anti feminist book that they were featuring as a joke. Also, I watched the a clip of Jessica on Colbert and he asked her "Is this what Susan B. Anthony fought for?" and I laughed so hard.

I'd also like to say to the person who wondered if foot fetishes where a one way street - I don't think they are. I mean, I have seen some foot fetish porn where it definitely did not seem like the woman was into it and was just doing her job, but I've seen that in all kinds of porn. But I can say from my OWN personal experience I do love having my feet worshiped, there's a very, very subtle, mild level of S/d play involved in it that adds to the actual physical sensations of having your toe sucked.

fishwithfeet, the cover the the book does NOT have a dismembered midriff. You could call it objectified. The photograph excludes the rest of the woman, but you do not see chopped flesh and holes were bone are meant to be. The midriff is also not hanging from a rope and covered in little vaginas sans clitoris. THAT is dismembered. Thankfully, the feet are at least missing the blood.

I'm not a big fan of the cover, either. I don't think that many people are. I don't really feel strongly one way or another to debate the issue, though, and I don't think this is really the place for it, anyway. I do, however, think that what you put forth is a highly unfair and inaccurate comparison, though.

Again, I don't have a problem with foot fetishes. You can rub whatever body part you like against your consenting partner's feet. If a man wants to rub his penis between his consenting partner's feet, whatever. If he wants to start finding ways to insert his penis into the foot, however, I do think that's a problem. If he/she likes to cut off women's feet, that's a problem, too.

I should have added that don't think that having a foot fetish is a bad thing in any way. I was just expressing why this particular product gives me the heebie-jeebies. I'm sorry if what I said came out as judgmental.

For me, they are unattractive appendages that serve a very useful purpose. Quite honestly, its not that different from the way I feel about penises too. They're not all that pretty, but damn I would be sad without them.

"See, all I could think of was how painful the whole set-up looks. Can you imagine walking on your vulva? It's probably a blessing there's no clit there."

Does this remind anyone else of that news a while back about a lady with a nipple on her foot?

http://dermatology.cdlib.org/124/case_presentations/pseudomamma/conde.html

"For me, they are unattractive appendages that serve a very useful purpose. Quite honestly, its not that different from the way I feel about penises too. They're not all that pretty, but damn I would be sad without them."

So you find parts of yours and men bodies unattractive? That sounds quite sad. You really should give your feet a better look. Feet are extremely sensitive, and few things are more pleaurable than a good foot massage. And how come you don't like the look of a penis if you enjoy one so much? I could stare at a vagina for hours and never get bored of it (but I don't want to dismember a vagina).

I know some people are saying that this is no different than a dildo and that people can like whatever they like. I totally agree with all that.

But excuse me if I get a little weirded out the first time I see a vagina on a foot. It creeps me out more than those dildos that are shaped like animals.

Itazura, not everybody finds every aspect of the human body attractive--it doesn't necessarily bespeak some horrible, sad neurosis.

FwF, your comment lost a lot credibility with me when you used the word "uppity" to describe this post. "Uppity" has never been used except to describe subjugated groups getting out of the place prescribed them by dominant groups. What on earth is so "uppity" about expressing dismay about about a representation of feet with a vagina in them?

I've really started to doubt your commitment to young women when this is the cover you present.

Really? That's...pathetic. I'm going to quote from Jessica's bio here:

"has a Masters degree in Women's and Gender Studies from Rutgers University and has worked with organizations such as NARAL Pro-Choice America, Legal Momentum (formerly NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund), Planned Parenthood, the Women's Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) and Ms. magazine. She is also a co-founder of the REAL hot 100, a campaign to highlight the important work that young women are doing across the country.

Jessica is the editor of Beijing Betrayed, a global monitoring report on women's progress worldwide and a contributing author to We Don't Need Another Wave and Single State of the Union (Seal Press). Her writing has appeared in Ms. magazine, Salon, The Guardian (UK), Bitch, Alternet, The Scholar & Feminist and Guernica."

So, all of that pales in comparison to choosing a sexualized cover photo for her book? Years of work be damned, her commitment to feminism and young women must be empty if she puts a naked torso on the cover of her book!

MirandaJay, I have no idea what the process behind choosing the book cover was. But I have never met an author who had any control over it, and I'm not sure why Jessica would be any exception. Quite frankly, I think that given Jessica's work, she's earned a measure of confidence about how the book cover decision went down and the reasoning behind it. The argument could be made that a certain type of young woman who is not usually receptive to feminism would be attracted by that cover. But I'm digressing. You ask, why wouldn't Jessica come out and say if she disliked the cover and had no control over it? I ask, why on earth would she, as a professional writer, shoot herself in the foot like that? When a book comes out, Jessica and her publishers have to put their all into publicity. Why the hell would Jessica publicly condemn any aspect of the book? Why would she deliberately alienate her publisher like that, and make a name for herself among other publishers as a difficult pain in the ass to work with? I suppose if she never intended to publish any future books ever in her life, there wouldn't be much to lose...but she's a writer. A professional writer. Why would she attack her own publications?

And Mina, I have to say that I may have nightmares.

The vagina on the foot didn't weird me out, but I would like for the creators of this product to explain why they chose to put a vagina on the soul of a foot.

Feet are cute (healthy feet) by themselves, so they really don't need a vagina added to them (the vagina look better where it is between the legs).

The only thing about this product that weirds me out is the fact that they are severed. Is there such a thing as a dismemberment fetish? I can honestly say that dismemberment totally turns me off.

"Itazura, not everybody finds every aspect of the human body attractive--it doesn't necessarily bespeak some horrible, sad neurosis."

I never said I thought you had a sad neurosis, and I am sorry if I gave you the impression that I thought you did.

However I do think you should give your feet, and the next penis you invite, a better look. The human body is beautiful in every aspect.

Itazura, manda said that she didn't care for the appearence of feet and penises--I was just leaping to her defense! But it's kind of a nice apology.

"Is this any worse than a butt flashlight, or a pocket pussy or the likeness of a dismembered penis?"

Agreed. And while I SORT OF understand the objection "why are they dismembered??" -- It's a sex toy. Dildos are "dismembered" (haha, get it?) penises. Portable vaginas as well. And while it would weird me out if my boyfriend had this, it would weird me out if he had a fleshlight just as much, and much less than a RealDoll, which of course has ALL the body parts of a real woman.

In addition, foot fetishes seem extremely tame to me. And to say that a foot fetishist is excluding everything else in a woman is saying that a man who likes boobs doesn't like the woman as a whole.

So yea. Weird, but not wrong.

Sorry Manda

I thought that was you speaking in EG's comment.

To you, every part may be beautiful, but not me. I find the human form (in all shapes, sizes, colors) to be very beautiful as a whole, but when I start looking at separate parts, there are some I like and some I don't. I think arms are beautiful - they're my favorite body part. I find backs incredibly sexy too. I can't really pinpoint anything that is wrong with penises or feet, I just don't find them attractive. I can still appreciate their good qualities without thinking they're all that pretty, can't I?

You're right, EG, I went too far with the statement about Jessica's commitment to young women. Obviously she is, I meant to word that differently and hit post instead of preview. I just don't think she's the woman's rights goddess so many of the suck-up commentors seem to claim on Jessica's various threads all about her and her accomplishments. But I don't think there's anything wrong with my use of the word uppity. Your argument reeks of tired political correctness. This IS an uppity post about a stupid sex toy when there are REAL crimes and injustices being commited against women and queers everywhere! It is uppity because this post makes me want to yank the stick out of Jessica's ass because it's such an unnecessary reaction. And to all who keep going on about dismemberment: would it be okay if they sold a a calf attached to the foot? What about a knee and thigh? A hip? A whole body? Again, in terms of dismemberment, this is the same as a dildo. I don't hear people calling creepiness about testicle-free plastic penises. So the vagina in the foot is creeping people out. Fine. All I know is if I had a cock I would buy one of these feet and go to town. I don't care if people are creeped out or shocked, at the end of the day, why are we politicizing sex? Why, why, WHY??? I don't need the government to tell me I can't have sex with a woman and I don't need feministing.com to tell me I can't fuck a silicone tootsie if I were so inclined.

Thanks for the support, EG/

well, I have heard of cases where guys fucked wounds, so that's what this reminded me of too. I have no idea if that is what this toy is alluding to or not, a real vagina - or a real whole in a foot... If it's the latter, it's definitely the most disturbing though

well, I have heard of cases where guys fucked wounds, so that's what this reminded me of too. I have no idea if that is what this toy is alluding to or not, a real vagina - or a real hole in a foot... If it's the latter, it's definitely the most disturbing though

to speak to the part where you're saying dildos are like dismembered penises: rubbish, I say. they're just the isolated body part, but not dismembered. it's not like you can see blood vessels hanging out of them or something. The best comparison with a dildo would be a fleshlight I think. And well, that's not what this post is complaining about. I don't see how you can completely compare the two.

I think the ultimate test for the meaning of this object would be to find out who buys the toy. I think only knowing who the typical consumers are could allow us to really judge what this thing means -other than that, we just have to guess.

"If he wants to start finding ways to insert his penis into the foot, however, I do think that's a problem. If he/she likes to cut off women's feet, that's a problem, too."

Somehow I can't see enjoyment of a sex toy manifesting itself in actual real-life violence. I'm not saying the argument is flawed - there's much that shows that rape pornography encourages rape, for example - but something about it doesn't sit quite right with me.

I know the allusion is bad, but all I could think of was that most dildos look like circumcised penises, but I couldn't imagine a woman asking her uncut boyfriend to become circumcised to match her sex toy. There are (awful) women who request that their boyfriends be circumcised, but they are few and far between.

and if you think little animals on sex toys are creepy, you obviously have never tried a rabbit toy (many women's best friend). or maybe you are just much more easily "icked" by masturbation in general than I am...

"And to say that a foot fetishist is excluding everything else in a woman is saying that a man who likes boobs doesn't like the woman as a whole."

Actually most of the boob men I know don't care much for the rest of the women. The most attractive part of a woman to me is her brain and facial expressions. A woman can arouse me a lot quicker with really great poetry than she could through posing, and if she gives me a look that expresses her viciousness, then I am hers on the spot (of course no woman gives me that look better than my wife).

To be totally honest sex toys in general turn me off, as a conversation is more appealing than anatomy with no intelligence.

This IS an uppity post about a stupid sex toy when there are REAL crimes and injustices being commited against women and queers everywhere! It is uppity because this post makes me want to yank the stick out of Jessica's ass because it's such an unnecessary reaction.

But that's not what "uppity" means. "Uppity" has traditionally been used to denigrate women of all races and black people who stand up for themselves, and is used to mean that someone is getting above themselves, not that they're prudish or uptight.

Feministing is full of posts on the "real" problems you cite. What's wrong with having a post in which people air their concerns about a toy foot with a vagina in it?

why are we politicizing sex?

What makes you think that sex isn't already political?

yeah but Jessi, men fantasize about violence against women more commonly than vice versa. I don't think anyone's saying this toy makes people violent. I think we're questioning what kinds of people would buy this toy to begin with

Hmm. Jessi, in my experience the visual difference between a circumcised and uncircumcised penis is only obvious when the penises in question are flaccid, so in the erect state, probably either one would resemble a dildo.

Heh. I love the fact that I just wrote that sentence!

Personally, I find the presence of the out-of-place vagina way creepy. It reminds me not only of a wound, but also of those, whaddaycall'ems, a friend of mine had to have surgery to have one removed, when clumps of tissue in the body start growing random inappropriate things like hair and teeth. Or those rats they grew human ears on.

"to speak to the part where you're saying dildos are like dismembered penises: rubbish, I say. they're just the isolated body part, but not dismembered. it's not like you can see blood vessels hanging out of them or something. The best comparison with a dildo would be a fleshlight I think. And well, that's not what this post is complaining about. I don't see how you can completely compare the two."

I'm confused as to what you can't compare. Because the pussyfoot doesn't have blood vessels hanging out of it either. So by your definition it's an isolated (modified) body part, not a dismembered one.

Sorry if that's what you were trying to say.

I never really thought about the masterbation aspect when I thought about sex toys. The few times I used sex toy it was always with a women.

The idea of someone masterbating with severed feet does sound kind of icky.

Teratomas! That's what I was thinking of!

"I'm confused as to what you can't compare. Because the pussyfoot doesn't have blood vessels hanging out of it either."

Usually dildos have a smoothed end, or else are made to fit to a harness. This foot looks to me like you can see some bone sticking out of it or something, the ankles are cut kind of jaggedly, and then there's the ropes.

Ninapendamaishi is right; the feet are definitely severed. But I thought we all understood that.

"I think we're questioning what kinds of people would buy this toy to begin with."
I would venture foot fetishists, who I've never found to be violent in the least. As I said, it seems to be one of the tamest, most harmless sexual practices around.

"Hmm. Jessi, in my experience the visual difference between a circumcised and uncircumcised penis is only obvious when the penises in question are flaccid, so in the erect state, probably either one would resemble a dildo."
Maybe it has to do with length of foreskin? My current boyfriend's penis doesn't look the same as an uncircumcised one when erect - the head doesn't show, as it does on most dildos.

"Actually most of the boob men I know don't care much for the rest of the women."
I've found otherwise, but it obviously varies from person to person. I don't attract too many "boob men" because I'm rather small, but that doesn't mean that they don't get a lot more attention than other parts of my anatomy.

From the website:
From the toe to heel the pussy foot is 9� long. The ankle has a 2½� diameter. The distance from the entrance in the vagina to the exit-hole at the top of the ankle is 6½�.

It's the place where the semen comes out, not a bone. Or maybe it's a bone too. I don't know.

Well, I stand corrected! Never mind, then.

Thanks to all who agree that the feet are definitely severed. Dildos (at least none that I've ever seen, and if they do I would have just as serious an aversion to them) do not have a jagged end like they were once penises cut from a man, and they do not have the appearance of a fleshy opening where it would have been severed. They have a smooth end, sometimes a nob to control speed, if it's a vibrator. This "toy" could have just as easily had smooth ends above the foot. It would still be weird, and the vaginas would definitely be an issue, but the feet would not be "severed."

No Jessi the only people who would really be inticed by this product are those with a dismemberment fetish. Which isn't bad, as long as they don't try to use a real dismembered body part. But people with fantasies usually want to make them come true. I have my own fantasies, but a lot of them I have no intention of every trying to make come true, because they involve women other than my wife. How much can we trust that people won't want to try and make the fantasy that these severed feet create a reality? I doubt few, if any, will sever feet because of these toys, but still it is a disturbing thought that somebody gets off on dismemberment.

it seems to me that if this toy appeals to foot fetishists, it appeals to very particular kind of foot fetishists. I don't know if the feet would appear severed to those who buy the product. It does seem like they'd appeal to someone who fantasized about actually being able to have intercourse with feet. This is less like a typical dildo than like a realistic model of men's feet with a penis sticking off of it.

That's the worst rendering of a vagina that I've ever seen. I thought it was an infected wound, at first, I guess b/c it's lacking its other bits.
I wouldn't call it harmful, necessarily, but pretty creepy. Couldn't they have just photographed it on a plain white background? No, they hang it like one of Ed Gein's trophies.
I don't need the government to tell me I can't have sex with a woman and I don't need feministing.com to tell me I can't fuck a silicone tootsie if I were so inclined.
I get what you're trying to say, but no one said not to buy one--just that the presentation is creepy.

More correctly the the item was described as the most disturbing thing they had seen. I don't find the item disturbing in the least, but I do find the idea of someone masterbating to severed feet rather disturbing.

I have a foot fetish myself, but I have never wanted to stick my penis into a foot (though to be totally honest I have never wanted to masterbate with toy), and I certainly do not have a fantasy to dismember a foot.

..."the only people who would really be enticed by this product are those with a dismemberment fetish."

Agreed. I've seen a lot of sex toys (I sell them), and though I have seen a pocket pussy that looked like a foot wearing a high-heeled shoe, it was not designed to look like a severed foot, ie. the place where the foot would have met the body was smooth and flat rather than uneven and with a hole where the bone would be.

"Which isn't bad, as long as they don't try to use a real dismembered body part. But people with fantasies usually want to make them come true."

That's what sexual role-playing is for, Itazura. Many people have fetishes that they know are dangerous or outright impossible in real life (an example of the latter: people who are aroused by the idea of being robots), so they find ways of roleplaying these fantasies with consenting partners.

The people we have to watch out for are the ones who are unable (or worse, unwilling) to separate fantasy from reality. But then, that counts for more than just fetishes.

I had meant to write "sometimes" rather than "usually".

Sorry for my gaff shiftercat

I dated a foot fetishist once, and it was a little creepy, but I really never got the impression that he wanted to have sex with my foot, or anything like that. I think that's a completely different fetish.

Though I am never going to ask my wife to roleplay as one of the women I fantasize about, because it would really creep me out if my wife wanted me to pretent I was someone else. Granting your lover's fantasy is never an easy task.

I actually liked Jessica's response to Colbert's question in regards to the cover. Is anything more feminist than a woman's body? It's an attractive and suggestive picture. Why do we feel the need to criticize that to support size acceptance and such? I mean, maybe a more "average" looking midriff could be found, but is it really important enough to rehash again?

As for the sex toy... I find something about it disturbing, but I'm not entirely sure what. I have no problem with the ropes, ropes can be hot. And I have no problem with foot fetishes or dildoes or pocket pussies. And yet there is something about it I find disturbing. Perhaps it is the -combination- of the ropes and dismembered look to it and the random vagina on a foot but serial killer is also what came to my mind.

No problem, Itazura. :) And yeah, there are some fantasies I wouldn't want to roleplay out. Everyone's got their hot-button issues.

The most disturbing sex toy I ever saw was a sounding rod. I think that's what they're called; you know those stainless steel rods that surgeons insert in the penis before they start the sex change operations. I was surprised that some men actually use those things as part of foreplay. The rods themselves looked innocuous, but it was the way that the rods were used that disturbed me (still I was almost willing to try it when my GF at the time asked if I would be interested in using one).

No Jessi the only people who would really be inticed by this product are those with a dismemberment fetish.

I don't know if you can say that the ONLY people who would ____ would be ____. As you and fishwithfeet are so far the only people who have commented and have professed foot fetishes, and fishwithfeet WOULD use the toy (were she a man) while you would not, and neither of you have dismemberment fetishes, I think this is simply a case of different tastes.

Jessi

You're right I should not have used an absolute, but I thought I mellowed the absolute by writing who would "really" be inticed.

However I thought I made it clear that I did not find the item the least bit disturbing. I have no problem with the item. But the idea of someone with a dismemberment fetish does disturb me, but only if they actually want to make their fantasy real.

The most disturbing things I have seen are in this order:

1 Hate groups like the KKK and Neo-Nazis
2 The neo-cons foreign policy agenda
3 the Bush administration’s criminal neglect towards the Iraqis
4 Islamic Extremists Honor Killings
5 Sharia law
6 Gitmo
7 The suspension of Habeas Corpus
8 Bill O’Reilly’s talking points
9 Crisis Pregnancy Centers
10 Theocracies
11 The Republican Party in general
12 Spanish Inquisition torture devices

A bizarrely crafted, but otherwise harmless, sex toy is hardly disturbing compared to the items I just listed.

Feministing is full of posts on..."real" problems... What's wrong with having a post in which people air their concerns about a toy foot with a vagina in it?

Hmmm. I just fell in love with this site a little bit more.

Um.

Three things:

1.) I think it's gross, but I don't have a foot fetish, so I wouldn't know. I'm sure there are many people who would think most of the sexual things I'm into are gross or scary, so I'm not gonna hate.

2.) The thing that bothers me is the dismemberment, or what resembles dismemberment. If this was a media thing, I'd say it promotes violence against women.

3.) It's not a media thing; it's sex. And sex should be enjoyed however you want to enjoy it, assuming it's all consensual.

So, yeah. My two cents. I'm not gonna hate it, but . . . ew. *shrug*

Thank you EG, for pointing out that sex is already political. Sorry to anyone who disagrees, but that's just a fact. Everything is political. Doesn't mean you have to alter your behavior, or justify it, or that you're not a feminist if you do such-and-such, of course.

But anyway, back to the dismembered foot. Here was what struck me the most from the website (other than the pricetag - wow!): the description of the fake vagina, in one breath, as *fully functional and totally fuckable.* Since the fake vagina shares no other properties with a human vagina other than being "fuckable", one must conclude the author of said gem equates "fully functional" WITH "fuckable" where vaginas are concerned. So, vaginas are just for fucking...a fuckable vagina is a *fully functional* vagina. Yeah, that's not political at all. /eyeroll/

Yeah, and apparently it's "fully functional" if it has had a clitorendectomy.

one must conclude the author of said gem equates "fully functional" WITH "fuckable" where vaginas are concerned.

or where masturbatory tools are concerned.

Sigh. I guess that's why the site said "fully functional masturbatory toy", then, instead of "fully functional vagina." Oh that's right, it didn't, it said "fully functional vagina." Show me a catalogue that advertises a vibrator as a "fully functional penis" and I'll consider rethinking that the gender of said "toy" has something to do with how it is described. We have plenty of real-world evidence that when vaginas are considered in political and social discourse, the concept of a "functional" vagina means functional for MEN or for "society," rather than the woman herself. Functional for getting men off (or we wouldn't have designer vagina plastic surgery), and for birthin' babeez (or there would not be so many threats to women's reproductive choice).

Nothing is a-contextual, apolitical, ahistorical...not even masturbatory toys, I'm afraid.

I dunno. I always like to take things back to the primitive caveman state we haven't fully (BIOLOGICALLY) evolved out of - no matter how hard we try. In which state, vaginas are designed for the sole purpose of pregnancy, whereas penises just happen to have the urethra down the middle, which is the sole characteristic differentiating them from devices used for the sole purpose of getting females pregnant.

No matter how primitive one's state is, vaginas are not at all designed for pregnancy. Uteruses are designed for pregnancy. Vaginas are designed for female pleasure, as a way to expel menstrual fluid, as a way to take in sperm, and as a way to push out a baby.

Making a sex toy that puts a vulva in the sole of a foot is as disturbing to me as making a sex toy that puts a penis in the middle of someone's chest, which is to say, not particularly. Maybe I'm just louche.

It's a little hard to deny the Ed Gein-ness of the illustration, though. If they didn't mean for the foot to look severed, you'd think that they'd finish the ankle end, especially since they're charging $100+ for a hunk of rubber.