|
MarcEsadrian -> RE: Foot worshipping Dom (10/5/2009 6:13:28 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GabrielleSlave
He is a dominant male, but he loves to worship women's feet; on the surface it would appear to be somewhat of a paradox. However, i have told him that he should be able to do this with a sub female as he is the boss and therefore should get what he wants.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DemonKia
OP, you might look into the history of foot binding in China, it was very fetishy & was all about the (presumably mostly dominant) men focusing erotically on the women's bound feet, playing with them, kissing & licking them, masturbating against them, & so on . . .
The foot binding of historic China connoted primarily a symbol of social status. It was a practice among the wealthy, and represented a man's ability to keep his girls free from the drudgery all too common for the times. It showed, by virtue of the handicap, that men could afford wives who did not need to work. The practice was a severe and often painful mutation of the foot, and given the context in which it was done, one would have to question what motives served this very particular fetish beyond status. I'm not so sure foot binding in historic China is directly correlative to a general love of women's feet alone. I'm quite tempted to say the two are different animals, altogether.
Having said that, I am going to go against the grain on this subject in general, considering other responses here. Perhaps I am showing my ignorance, close-mindedness and bias, but I'll risk it in saying while it's true a dominant male or female has the right to do whatever they want to their slaves / submissives in a technical sense, I would suggest asking if it's necessarily wise to engage in any act under the sun simply for this reason. We can speak in denotative and say kissing a foot is kissing a foot, and sucking a toe is sucking a toe, and that's that. But seldom do humans live in such a sterile, connotatively meaningless vacuum. The reality is, the biomechanics involved in bringing one's head, the highest part on the body, to another's foot, the lowest part on the body, is a near universal act of submission, or at least respect. I suppose you could go out on a limb and say a madman who collects severed feet in a freezer proves exception to the rule, or to be less grotesque, a Master who just wants to get jiggy with a foot is just fulfilling a desire, and you'd be right in a sense; sometimes fetishes, in one's own mind, are so far removed from anything but feeding themselves that there is no context to the act in one's own mind, save the act of the fetish itself. The problem is where other minds come into play, and what those minds may be thinking about a dominant person engaging in what is widely seen as a submissive or worshipful act. In my mind, the way it is done would have to be deeply considered to avoid that connotation.
I'm well aware I'll be told otherwise, and it's not that I'm deaf to those counterpoints. In a theoretical sense, I agree with them. I just find that by migration of this thread's logic, a master should then rightly be able to indulge in being used as a toilet by his "slave". Perhaps giving all his money to his "slave" so she can spend it all to oblivion in pocketbooks, skirts and shoes will be the next frontier to conquer in challenging assumed stereotypes. Technically, the Master can do all these things, but I tend to ask, in light of the greater symbolism behind certain acts, why? Call me crazy.
If you are a Master and you want to kiss your slave's foot or bury your nose up her ass, fine, but I'll stay on my island in the belief that those acts are ultimately submissive in the base language of the human animal. Proceed at your own risk.
|
|
|
|
