The "foot tedium" appeals to a diminutive cult. Do the math: Upper-body + nudity=sales, crossing over the mainstream. Amber is gorgeous and very vulnerable to tickling applications: what's the point of blowing such a prospect on toes? Upper body aficionados just don't waste their time or money on feet; and mainstream prospects, infectiously drawn into the tickle fetish, would prefer to see more visibility of Amber's anatomy (ahem, it's why the annual "Sports Illustrated" Swimsuit Issue is a best seller; ever see a pinup of feet???). Would the average, red-blooded heterosexual male prefer to watch Amber wiggling her toes? or jiggling as she's tormented with a fiendish venue of feathers, ice and Q-Tips (guys who profess a detachment from tickling have "converted" upon viewing COUNT TICKULA or one of Skelyrata's videos). You want to sell clips or videos, focus on upper body (let's dumb it down just a tad more; browsing through a counter, would the aforementioned heterosexual be attracted to a close-up of feet?--or a bikini-clad/nude Amber? Tickle torment sustains universal appeal if the woman is gorgeous and the tickling is constrained to her erogenous targets. The best-selling Victorian novel, "The Way of a Man and a Maid", offers a bound, naked beauty whose breasts and navel are intensely tickled; the author omitted feet. Wonder why? Incidentally, "Man/Maid" was adapted into a farcical movie; British hotty, Sue Longhurst, played "chaste" Alice, whose upper body is "assaulted' with the plumes of a "Chinese Tickler" machine. Groovy.
This question is a no-brainer. Next time, let's discuss James' theory of mechanistic determinism (personally, I'm on the fence).