Porn: good or bad?

[HenrySwanson]

Thinking about consent now.

There's been a story about Lily Allen going on to Only Fans:

Lily Allen shares husband’s reaction to selling pictures of feet on OnlyFans

The singer said she found the experience ’empowering’.

www.aol.co.uk

Now, this particular fetish raises some interesting ethical questions:

The ethics of Wikifeet - Philadelphia Weekly

Is Wikifeet's celebrity section ok?

philadelphiaweekly.com

The article starts with the question:

Q: A couple weeks back, some friends and myself were joking about the website Wikifeet and how easy it is for those with foot fetishes to access these photos. It then dawned on me: one of Wikifeet’s notable (and I use that term loosely) features is celebrity feet, and it got me wondering how many of these public figures actually consented to their feet being on a foot fetish website?

I’ve seen countless YouTubers do their best to hide their bare feet because they don’t want to be on Wikifeet, but sometimes, slip-ups happen and they wind up on the website. Am I the only one that thinks sites like Wikifeet should shut down their “celebrity” part of the website and should cater more to people who consent to having their photos online for the particular fetish?

The answer raises some good points and highlights that some have tried to copyright their feet. It also states that one of the biggest websites (wikifeet) is blocked in the EU because of a Copyright Directive.

 

[TexRex]

It's neither. It just is. Things that exist don't have to be deemed good or bad. Certainly if things are going to be deemed bad it shouldn't be done so based on feelings but on reason; that one cries like a little bitch about a thing is not sufficient to label said thing bad.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I remember hearing about a theory that because of how the brain is wired, podophilia is the most common form of partialism (if you want to explore, it has to do with the cortical homunculus). Looking it up further I see that there's such a thing as a paraphilic disorder in the DSM-5, and that fetishism may be distinct from that, but frankly I don't have the time to go down that rabbit hole.

The point is, should this be regulated somehow in the future? And if it's decided that it should, how could it possibly be?

 

[McLaren]

If a celebrity has an issue with a foot fetish website using photos of their feet, they more than likely have the legal firepower to issue a take down with the site. Otherwise, I don't think this is something easily regulated. The amount of people who can get off to a picture of feet likely isn't any different than the people who can get off to just their image through a fan page.

The site itself though, acknowledges these concerns & looks to place responsibility onto the individuals who create each page.

However we cannot ignore the fact that some celebs would not feel comfortable being featured in a foot oriented site. This issue needs to be addressed, as the proper balance will ensure the survival of the site for years to come. Before creating a new page, please ask yourself if the celebrity will be ok with being on wikiFeet. Have they ever mentioned our community? How do they feel about people who are into feet? Use your discretion, and if you don't have a clear answer, please try to reach the celeb and politely ask for their permission.

All pictures must have been shared by their respective owners for free. TV/Movie/VoD screenshots are protected under Fair Use.
The celebrity must have been over 18 and with everyone reasonably covered when pictures were taken. Censoring adult content is not allowed. Underage subjects must be completely cropped out.

From my view, the site is trying to hold some level of respect towards the people. Photos must be ones that are already out there, 18+ content is not allowed even through censoring, & it would appear the site does not want photos cropped so that only the feet are visible.

I mean, basically, this site looks to just be a collection of photos already out there allover the web, it's just that the people's feet are fully visible. For example, Scarlett Johannson has a giant amount of photos, but they're really no different from TMZ, IG, etc. Hell, some of the photos specifically focused on her feet are sourced directly from Getty Images. I don't think this website, as strange as it comes across, is doing anything wrong. Erase the foot fetish aspect of it & tell me it's a just a Wiki centered around celebrities, I'd probably believe you.

 

[HenrySwanson]

If a celebrity has an issue with a foot fetish website using photos of their feet, they more than likely have the legal firepower to issue a take down with the site. Otherwise, I don't think this is something easily regulated. The amount of people who can get off to a picture of feet likely isn't any different than the people who can get off to just their image through a fan page.

The site itself though, acknowledges these concerns & looks to place responsibility onto the individuals who create each page.


From my view, the site is trying to hold some level of respect towards the people. Photos must be ones that are already out there, 18+ content is not allowed even through censoring, & it would appear the site does not want photos cropped so that only the feet are visible.

I mean, basically, this site looks to just be a collection of photos already out there allover the web, it's just that the people's feet are fully visible. For example, Scarlett Johannson has a giant amount of photos, but they're really no different from TMZ, IG, etc. Hell, some of the photos specifically focused on her feet are sourced directly from Getty Images. I don't think this website, as strange as it comes across, is doing anything wrong. Erase the foot fetish aspect of it & tell me it's a just a Wiki centered around celebrities, I'd probably believe you.

Funny quirk - my mobile network (O2) deems it an 18+ website so if I was underage I technically could have my access blocked.

 

[McLaren]

Funny quirk - my mobile network (O2) deems it an 18+ website so if I was underage I technically could have my access blocked.

You did share it was also blocked due to a Copyright issue as well, but tmu, Europe is much tougher on websites.

 

[TexRex]

You did share it was also blocked due to a Copyright issue as well, but tmu, Europe is much tougher on websites.

Due in no small part to this bitch.

Edit:

 

[TexRex]