Enjoying Women's Feet is Eugenic
Enlightening Bliss on the Feet Question
In this treatise I’ll demonstrate that Feet Niggas have significantly more eugenic sexual tastes than any other Type of Guy, while refuting a series of straightforwardly erroneous assertions to the contrary by my talented and handsome comrade Bliss.
My argument has three fundamental prongs:
Women who take exceptional care of their feet are obliquely demonstrating higher order characteristics of femininity that are clearly desirable in a woman even if you aren’t aroused by feet—podophobes can simply use the general state of her feet as a low resolution heuristic through which to assess her femininity.
Contra Bliss, one *actually can* make numerous useful inferences about a woman’s character and genetic fitness purely from her observable foot physiognomy.
It’s much harder for a woman to fake attractive feet than attractive anything else.
I’ll begin by substantiating the first prong:
Women are judged rather severely on their appearance and especially grooming, which tends to be a lot more time-consuming and expensive than it is for men
The ubiquity of close-toed shoes and relatively low proportion of foot fetishists means most women receive a far lower material and hedonic return on meticulously caring for their feet than they do for any other body part where it’s an option.
That means ensuring she has pretty feet is going to be basically the last thing on your average girl’s list UNLESS she is specifically dating a foot guy or she used to date a foot guy and over the course of the relationship adopted the receptive end of his fetish (incredibly common in these situations but not our domain)
Just think about this anecdotally and you’ll see it’s true. You see girls leaving the house with gross fucked up toes who’d never dream of doing so without makeup. Hell, I’ll specifically tell a girl before a hookup that I care more about her feet looking nice than her face and she’ll still pay more attention to her dumb makeup, bc esp in casual sex female sexuality is as much about feeling desirable to herself as you wanting her (high status girls basically just take that for granted)
So if she takes the time to keep her feet very soft and freshly pedicured of her own volition that’s generally a sign she’s either pampered enough for it to be worth the prohibitive opportunity cost (ergo she’s relatively high status) or just hugely prissy in her personal grooming habits. Both traits are obviously desirable.
Next I’ll elaborate on the second prong by assessing the most damning of Bliss’s errors and confusions, which the lad helpfully collated in this follow-up response:
But in all seriousness, foot preferences among fetishists don't seem to align with good genes. People's preferences for facial morphology tend to correlate well with overall health, as well as certain physiognomic traits like intelligence and strength, which are often linked to specific facial features. In contrast, I don't think feet have the same predictive power. Most foot fetishists just prefer dainty feet—unless they're gay. At most, this signals a preference for sexual dimorphism, but I don't think it goes beyond that. Granted, it's not my area of expertise.
Clearly not! But it is mine.
And having physically interfaced with the feet of 117 different women while receiving bespoke feet pics from probably twice that number, I can attest with some certainty that your analysis is operatically wrongheaded.
To wit:
“Daintiness” is not monofactorial. Sure, some guys are obsessively fixated on overall size, but IMO this codes as low status, Boomer, and even vaguely Oriental. Getting turned on by “small feet” is for Asians. It’s a lot like being really into short girls—feels incel and scarcity mindset. Disgusting.
When I hear “dainty” I’m thinking instead of a slender and feminine shape with relatively long toes and an incredibly pronounced arch—something that if anything correlates with a larger shoe size. That said I also really hate it when guys who have this preference call the girl’s feet “big,” which sounds masculine and grotesque and intended to humiliate the girl but not even in an appealing way. The suitable nomenclature is obviously “long,” and foot fetishists who say “big” IMO deserve to be tortured to death.
Long toes and a pronounced arch actually carry tremendous mechanical benefits in the natural state. The former provide traction on slippery surfaces and let you grab things with your feet more dexterously, while the latter facilitates an explosive springlike motion while allowing you to ambulate more gracefully or stealthily (something men need less, hence us having significantly flatter feet). I’ve dated lots of dancers over the years and they’ll talk about genetic variation in Foot Quality the same way guys will talk about easygainers vs. hardgainers.
You can never predict if a girl will have nice feet with absolute certainty, but there are TONS of little tells. For instance, if she has slender elegant fingers her toes will match like 90% of the time, and the same principle applies if she has stubby lil’ gremlin fingers. Facial features also track—a bulbous and round physiognomy implies stubby ugly toes and so on. Meanwhile fat girls obv have rekt arches.
People will call me schizo for this, but it honestly correlates with personality too… If I go through my folders in Google Photos and look at all the feet of the various women I hooked up with from 2020 to 2024 I observe a consistent pattern in that more psychologically liberal girls (high openness low con high neuroticism) have more slender feet with longer toes, whereas psychologically conservative girls (low openness high con low neuroticism) tend to have wider feet with shorter stubbier toes. But there actually doesn’t seem to be any noticeable correlation between OCEAN and arch intensity. Obviously this isn’t “scientific,” but neither are sociological surveys and I think my sample is large enough to be meaningful.
I really appreciate you for bearing with me, reader.
We’re at the final prong now. Recall I’m arguing here that feet are the most reliable signal of genetic health because it’s significantly harder to fake foot attractiveness.
Most women can add anywhere from 2-4 points with makeup depending on how talented and wealthy they are. Meanwhile rapidity of aging is MASSIVELY downstream of social class; these days high IQ rich women regularly get their skin blasted off and the return is clearly worth it. For instance I’ve spoken with Kryptogal (Kate, if you like) a few times on video call and she unironically looks younger than lots of working class girls in their late 20s despite being like 45.
Wealthier women can also afford Ozempic, trainers, Whole Foods shit etc. which means it’s not just face but her overall figure as well. It becomes a feedback loop.
Now the social acceptability of getting a Boobjob or BBL is probably dependent on the ecology… but I will say that in Scottsdale AZ and Central FL it wouldn’t be seen as monstrously sleazy for a rich guy to ask his wife to get either procedure. Hell, these days a lot of trashy rich girls get them done of their own volition. Meanwhile one exgf of mine I very much wanted to marry had a hammertoe and I proposed sending her in to get it fixed via cosmetic foot surgery… but of course one of the girl’s fat friends called me toxic etc. even though she herself had a BBL.
And perhaps this is just anecdotal evidence… but I think it speaks to the fact that cosmetic foot surgery specifically for something like making your feet hotter for a foot fetish bf is probably seen as meaningfully less “socially normal,” and girls are ofc all huge normies. Given that it impacts something as important as ambulation I seriously doubt most girls would even bother contemplating this route unless it was for their husband or they somehow got groomed into receptively adopting an exbf’s foot fetish in spite of also naturally having extremely ugly feet.
Also cosmetic foot surgery is just incredibly rare per ChatGPT:
Essentially what I’m saying here is that a genetically unhealthy girl can mask her shitty genes in a million different ways these days, but the likelihood of her doing so specifically through her feet is insanely low, meaning it’s a great place to find the truth.
I’m not trying to “convince” anyone to have a foot fetish or whatever—that obviously isn’t how sexuality works. I’m merely suggesting an aesthetic fixation on female feet is fantastically eugenic and that in an ultra-chaotic dating market with a surfeit of choices non-footfrens might stand to benefit from adopting our broader heuristics.
But I’ll finish with a few disclaimers.
Guys who like excessively dirty / smelly feet IMO deserve to be tortured to death. People should shower before sex. But that’s also just my opinion. I’m just a guy.
That said I also think all the normalfag guys hitherto groaced out by this article really ought to confront the fact that at virtually any level of hygiene a girl’s pussy will typically smell quite a bit worse than her feet.
Also does anyone *actually* like eating pussy? When fellers enthuse about cunnilingus it always seemed to me like faggy pick me virtue signaling. Like I’ve wanted to for a small handful of girls I was literally obsessed with, but the gap between wanting sex and wanting to eat her pussy is nothing short of colossal.
Extremely important to note that it’s disordered and degenerate and groty to ever involve the man’s feet in anything at all ever—this provokes a severe disgust response in me. Men should be prohibited from wearing sandals in public in my opinion. I shouldn’t ever have to think about men’s feet under any circumstances.
Like I said, these are simply my opinions.
Now go like this article and share your own dumb opinions in the comments below.
Tbh I don't care what someone's underlying genetic fitness is as long as I find her attractive even if artificial methods were used to achieve that result.
I'm kind of confused about the attraction to feet. Like do you find feet as big an inducement of arousal as breasts and booty? If so, does that make staring at a lady's feet while she wears flip-flops equivalent to staring at her cleavage? Or do you see feet more like the face, i.e. beautiful and sparking desire but not intrinsically erotic?
Assertion that it's weird to prefer small feet over large ones, even though this has the most literature on the evolution of smaller feet as it signals a nubile and nulliparity status and is sexually dimorphic. I care about BOTH foot shape AND size. Walt, don’t be such a chud, going against such an obvious feminine feature and calling it chink coded when it's relevant for any bitch, ever, despite being consciously underrated.
But honestly, more small feet for me. So continue on