This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
From YKTTW Working Title: Does not like shoes
Mark Lungo: I moved the following Conversation On The Main Page about the Barefoot Sorority stories here where it belongs:
Mike D: There's something very fetishy about this one...it might be a more appropriate addition to the Foot Focus page.
Mark Lungo: I did put it on the Foot Focus page, but it was immediately removed for being too fetishy. southerncrossfire44 has also written two other series, also available at his Deviant Art site: another Slice of Life story called No Shoes Pizza, and a new Spy Drama called Barefoot Agent. To me, it seems obvious that all his works (so far) belong both on this page and Foot Focus.
Mike D: In my opinion more on Foot Focus than here...this page is a lot less about Rule 34 than Foot Focus. As I see it Foot Focus is essentially about Author Appeal, while this page is about people who habitually go shoeless for comfort, convenience, as a statement, etc., but without the sexual element. It's ironic that it got deleted from Foot Focus, but if this guy's stories were too fetishy for that page they absolutely have no business here. And let's be honest, those stories were definitely written to appeal to fetishists. Most of them are even filed under "erotic." If you have even a moment's doubt that the author is a foot fetishist take a casual glance through his DA favorites.
Calling Alameda: I'm not positive that they truly belong either place, but I would hazard the opinion that they belong more here than on Foot Focus. Rule 34, which seems to be what drives the entries on Foot Focus, is about things that turn you on without meaning to; since these stories are written specifically for the foot fetish crowd, Rule 34 does not apply. Foot Focus is about the appearance of feet in mainstream media, not about works specifically designed for that purpose. Quentin Tarantino may like to show feet in his films, but that's not what the films are made for. On the other hand, Does Not Like Shoes is simply about characters who like to go without footwear, so by that definition, these stories definitely qualify. I guess the issue here, then, is does this trope specifically exclude instances where characters are made to go barefoot purely for fetishistic reasons on the part of the author or the intended audience? We might need to clarify exactly what this particular trope entails.
Mike D: Specifically Rule 34 is, "If it exists, there is porn of it." It's less about things accidentally turning people on than it is about people creating porn based on non-pornographic media. But I used the term loosely (as we so often do out here on the intrawebs); in truth, it doesn't apply here at all.
I will say, Alameda, that your definition of the two pages make sense, and you'll note I never edited the stories in question off the page.
So is this entry about characters that have stated why they don't wear shoes or can characters that are inexplicably barefoot and not given a reason at all be added?
