Dave Letterman is a "Footman"

[gscott2679]

Last night I was watching TV and switched over to Late Night with Dave Letterman. He just finish his Top Ten List when he introduce his first guest
Brooke Shields. They began their convensation when Brooke told Dave that she had canelled foot surgery to do his show. Well at that point Dave sat up moved closer to her and look down at her feet. He kept asking questions after questions about her foot and if she was in pain and if her shoes hurt her on and on. They show close-ups of her feet again and again, but Dave really staring at her feet, very interesting.

 

[AmishTickler]

I think Leno might be too. He's had quite a few "foot encounters" on the Tonight Show over the years I do believe. There's probably more guys into feet than most people think. lol

 

[Tomskee]

It is widely accepted that the most common fetish is feet. That's why most tickling producers concentrate on feet. It is no surprise that there are undercover footmen everywhere. Tickle fetish and foot fetish go together like peanut butter and jelly.

 

[Excess]

It is widely accepted that the most common fetish is feet. That's why most tickling producers concentrate on feet. It is no surprise that there are undercover footmen everywhere. Tickle fetish and foot fetish go together like peanut butter and jelly.

And what exactly does that have to do with anything now? You just looking to go on about what you believe to be true, which is only an opinion. Technically, the most common fetishes are breasts and ass fetishes, but those aren't called such because they are mainstream. As such, feet and tickling only go together because people CHOOSE them too due to liking both (although many on this site really don't). It's no different than, say, an armpit fetish or a stomach fetish or whatever.

And btw, this doesn't NECCESARILY mean he has a foot fetish. I remember when Conan had a drummer filling in for Max several months ago, they did alot of talk about his feet (since he drummed barefoot and had a weird toe). Does that mean he has a foot fetish too? Not saying Dave couldn't have one, but you guys jump to conclusions about anyone that mentions feet for more than a sentence.

 

[Tomskee]

It may be my opinion but it is an opinion supported by the overwhelming number of foot fetish sites on the net and the Museum of Sex in New York states in their fetish exhibit that feet are in fact the most common fetish. Breast and ass are not considered fetishes so much because they are seen as conventional sexual organs. Fetishes are defined as a sexual attraction to an object or material that is essentially sexless. Body part attractions are called partialisms, but we call everything fetish. I do take small offense to you saying we "CHOOSE" to associate tickling and feet together. For most, not all, it is a natural progression. We can no more choose what body part arouses us (and what we want to do with that body part), than we can choose to be gay or straight. We are either predisposed or imprinted at an early age with our sexual desires. A 40 year old man doesn't just up and say "You know what? I feel like dressing like a woman and get spanked" or "I feel like tickling a pretty girl's feet." They may CHOOSE to actively pursue his fantasy, but the desire was always there. I am not saying that the only thing to tickle is feet or that feet are only good for tickling, but to deny a natural association is clearly wrong and the free market of video producers bear that out.

As far as Letterman goes, I never commented on Dave directly but just said I am not surprised if there are more foot fetishist still in the closet. I don't think one instance of foot awareness does a fetishist make, but one should watch continuing actions. I believe that Leno is a footman and we all know Tarantino is. Before QT admitted his fetish, we could only speculate. Truth is we can never know until someone admits it. But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...I guess its a cat, right? Just kidding.

TS

 

[Excess]

Wow. Just because I called you on using the topic as a facet for you to assert your 'beliefs' (and yes, I do, for most of what you say, mean beliefs) doesn't mean you need to analyze every detail and break it down in hopes to make yourself, simply put, look justified.

First of all, words are made by people, and therefore defined by people. Feet may not be a nonsexual part of the body in terms of directly, but guess what? Technically there's only one bodypart that would be truly 'sexual' in such a way. The butt and breasts, however, are not necessary for actual sex in it's purest form. They are, rather, the bodyparts which, over however many years humanity has been growing, have grown to be seen as such due to a long-time attraction to such places by the human species. It's just how things evolved. If such a thing had happened to feet, it could easily be considered 'sexual' as well.

Second, tell me, what exactly makes feet and tickling go together better than bellies and tickling, or hips and tickling, or any bodypart and tickling? If it turns you on, fine, but claiming one commonly ticklish bodypart goes better with tickling than another is simply an opinion, and ONLY an opinion. It's an opinion because it is YOUR belief, based on you being into it. This doesn't make someone with an armpit fetish 'less correct' than it does you for associated tickling with it.

And yes btw, people DO choose for them to be considered 'together', unless one has a specific fetish for ticklish feet I suppose. While it is true that such tastes can be imprinted on one's genetics, it is not always the case. Many people's tastes grows based on childhood experiences and influences. Go around and ask how many here prefer feet to tickling. Then ask if the only reason some here are into tickling is because of feet. Then asks if they have any experiences in their youth that exposed them highly to feet. The individual often choose to associate the two due to one being a facet for the other. While there are obviously many different cases, more often than not people don't associate the two so strongly because it's in their genes.

Of course, I expect you'll respond with a huge rant on how I'm wrong while trying desperately to prove it, even though it'll probably end up making you look YOU used this thread as an outlet for what you believe (and hope, in the 'more foot people than you realize' thing), but I don't much care since I've already stated my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Tomskee]

Wow. Just because I called you on using the topic as a facet for you to assert your 'beliefs' (and yes, I do, for most of what you say, mean beliefs) doesn't mean you need to analyze every detail and break it down in hopes to make yourself, simply put, look justified.

First of all, words are made by people, and therefore defined by people. Feet may not be a nonsexual part of the body in terms of directly, but guess what? Technically there's only one bodypart that would be truly 'sexual' in such a way. The butt and breasts, however, are not necessary for actual sex in it's purest form. They are, rather, the bodyparts which, over however many years humanity has been growing, have grown to be seen as such due to a long-time attraction to such places by the human species. It's just how things evolved. If such a thing had happened to feet, it could easily be considered 'sexual' as well.

Second, tell me, what exactly makes feet and tickling go together better than bellies and tickling, or hips and tickling, or any bodypart and tickling? If it turns you on, fine, but claiming one commonly ticklish bodypart goes better with tickling than another is simply an opinion, and ONLY an opinion. It's an opinion because it is YOUR belief, based on you being into it. This doesn't make someone with an armpit fetish 'less correct' than it does you for associated tickling with it.

And yes btw, people DO choose for them to be considered 'together', unless one has a specific fetish for ticklish feet I suppose. While it is true that such tastes can be imprinted on one's genetics, it is not always the case. Many people's tastes grows based on childhood experiences and influences. Go around and ask how many here prefer feet to tickling. Then ask if the only reason some here are into tickling is because of feet. Then asks if they have any experiences in their youth that exposed them highly to feet. The individual often choose to associate the two due to one being a facet for the other. While there are obviously many different cases, more often than not people don't associate the two so strongly because it's in their genes.

Of course, I expect you'll respond with a huge rant on how I'm wrong while trying desperately to prove it, even though it'll probably end up making you look YOU used this thread as an outlet for what you believe (and hope, in the 'more foot people than you realize' thing), but I don't much care since I've already stated my thoughts on the matter.

I must analyze and break down someones argument when they misunderstand and misrepresent what I have said. The original intent of the thread was discussing whether or not David Letterman has a foot fetish. Does the question completely fit in with the board, no. But does it have some peripheral appeal, yes. The reason why the question was raised, was because it would surprise people if Dave had a foot fetish. It was in this context that I asserted that there are many foot fetishist who don't readily admit it.

You are correct in saying that our attraction to tits and ass have come about over time through the evolutionary process. And you are also correct in assuming in a million years we may feel the same way about feet. However, we are not there yet. The fact remains most people see feet just as things we walk on and they see breasts and butts as secondary sex organs. If a woman walks barefoot in the street, a few may notice. If a woman walks topless in the street, everyone will notice and she will be arrested.

I have never said that one form of tickling is better than another. I simply stated the association between the two fetishes are common and natural. You put the value on the different tickling forms not me, in addition to putting words in my mouth. I never once claimed feet tickling is better. You injected that into my statements, so you are the one that has the agenda. The PB & J metaphor was used for the compatibility of feet/tickling and not to the exclusion of the other forms. If it makes you happy, armpits/tickling go together like Kool-Aid and sugar. Ribs/tickling go together like cereal and milk. And hips/tickling go together like cheese and burger.

For goodness sake! Both you and Crystal have done the same damn thing. Imprinting means experiences felt as a child not on genes. The terms "nature or nurture" and genetics and environmental describe the same dichotomy. You have totally misunderstood what I said. Ironically, we totally agree on this point. Except you can't choose the experiences you have as a child and you can't choose how things affect you, therefore you can't choose your fetishes and what you associate with the fetish.

The only thing my response will prove that we don't disagree as much as you may think. And that you have misrepresented and misunderstood my statements. You have also jumped the gun because my statements were in context of the original thread. I expect you to read my response carefully and respond WITHOUT acrimony or disdain. But I have high expectations.

TS

 

[keptsKEEPER]

Calm down

hey dr. phil, oprah, wanna give it a rest....

 

[the footman]

seriously, what's the argument about?

So much analyzing of words regarding tickling and feet. What the hell is going on? Suck toes and tickle the soles, tickle ribs, whatever...

These have to be the stupidest posts I've almost ever read - had to stop about 20 words in because I was getting dizzy.

 

[Darkknight]

hey dr. phil, oprah, wanna give it a rest....

DK

 

[tickleking]

...These have to be the stupidest posts I've almost ever read - had to stop about 20 words in because I was getting dizzy.

LOL! This just really struck me funny

Thanks!

TK