Talk:Boot fetishism

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge with shoe fetish?[edit]

I say merge with shoe fetish. No info here that is not there. Lotusduck 21:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Men's boots[edit]

This page mainly discusses attraction to females wearing stilleto boots, with a brief mention of homosexual males liking traditionally more masculine boots. What about heterosexual females? The masculine boots should be talked about more. --24.118.129.133 06:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any sourced information on that, you should add it. Harold O'Brian (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge to List of fetishes?[edit]

Should this article on a rather minor fetish be merged to this list article I'm creating?--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 20:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's really not 'minor', that's just your opinion. Harold O'Brian (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with shoe fetishism?[edit]

A user keeps deleting this page and redirecting it to shoe fetishism. This article is more comprehensive & a redirect would have to be voted on. Furthermore, the article the user links to does not include any info from here.Stereorock (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this fetish merits its own page. I think the problem is there are no references in the major part of the text. There should be more references added, so the article is not unreferenced. Harold O'Brian (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC) - I have added some sources now. I only have one book on the subject, but maybe someone can help out with more references? Harold O'Brian (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've done good work! If I come across anything, I'll add it!Stereorock (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boot fetishism is not a kind of shoe fetishism[edit]

Boots are a kind of footwear, and so are shoes. Strictly speaking, boots are not shoes, and shoes are not boots. Boot fetishism is a fetishism for a kind of footwear, just as shoe fetishism is, but that does not mean you have a fetish for shoes just because you have a fetish for boots. So boot fetishism is not "a kind of shoe fetishism". Harold O'Brian (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images should not be included in this article[edit]

Images of boots, footwears or shoes that are not stilleto heels and / or very high heels should not be included in this page. For example, the image File:BootsBr.jpg should not be included in this article. 190.137.36.40 (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? They can be subjects of fetishism. Elliot Wing (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But this picture shows nothing of fetishism, so then, this will not be included in this article. Note that not all images of boots or shoes show fetish things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.225.104.205 (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean. None of the pictures show anything of fetishism, and I actually don't think it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to show a picture of someone jacking off over a boot, even in an article about boot fetishism. A boot does not have to be specially made for fetishism (if that's what you mean), it is enough that some people find the boot sexually arousing, no matter how mundane it may look to the general public. Your argument doesn't make sense, it's like if you don't understand the nature of sexual fetishism but only see it as some kind of unusual subcultural fashion. I restore what you have taken away. Elliot Wing (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The images that were previously unnecessary. an image that's enough. 190.137.188.225 (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I suggest we keep the fashion boots and get rid of the rest of the images. However, I think all of them are good illustrations for the subject of this article. Elliot Wing (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that all of the pictures are good illustrations and representative of this article and the option to be open for more to be added.Stereorock (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This IP user has a current ANI report located at Wikipedia:ANI#190.137.36.40. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that not all images of boots show fetish things. Fashion boots are boots worn for reasons of style or fashion, and that is not related with fetishism, for that reason, the fashion boots have nothing to do with fetishism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.125.74.112 (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding of the concept sexual fetishism is just plain wrong, as has already been explained to you. It is quite possible to have a sexual fetish for everyday items like fashion boots. Please, just stop making these changes to the article which noone but you find to be correct. Elliot Wing (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is incredibly biased.[edit]

I don't know how this page has existed so long in its current form. An alien to our culture seeing this would think male boots have no sexual fetish value at all, which is absolutely, incontrovertibly untrue. I would like to edit this page to reflect that (keeping all the female fetish info intact), but it seems like one or more users are vehemently opposed to this, as there is literally *no* mention of male sexuality in this article at all. Please, even if you don't see the appeal, realize it is there, and allow this article to be fully accurate for all humans, not just heterosexual males.

It even has that WikiProject Sexuality affiliation, which I take as a sign this page needs updating.

I plan to fix this- please don't revert this page to its current, sexist form. --Drpvfx (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please Improve, don't Remove. --Drpvfx (talk) 03:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It hadn't existed for very long, just from last summer, which is some months before your post here. Some people thought that there shouldn't be an article about this subject at all, so I tried to make it as thoroughly as I could with the sources I had. I didn't intend to be biased and I don't really see why you seem to be upset. Your addition was clearly relevant to the topic. Harold O'Brian (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]